Cowitz v. Miller
| Decision Date | 26 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 37812,37812 |
| Citation | 414 P.2d 795,68 Wn.2d 637 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Selvester J. COWITZ, Appellant, v. Del Monte MILLER, d/b/a Rainier Construction Company, Respondent. |
Nicholas A. Maffeo, Renton, for appellant.
Payne & Verzani, Robert J. Verzani, Federal Way, for respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing with prejudice his claim for damages. Defendant-respondent did not file a brief in this court.
The case was tried to the court. At the close of plaintiff's evidence a challenge to its sufficiency was sustained. The judge announced in his oral opinion that he was weighing the evidence, hence it would be necessary to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The posture of this appeal is, therefore, controlled by the rule expressed in Richards v. Kuppinger, 46 Wash.2d 62, 278 P.2d 395 (1955), and interpreted, after our decision in Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wash.2d 570, 343 P.2d 183 (1959), by our decision in Mayflower etc. v. West Coast Heating Supply, Inc., 60 Wash.2d 766, 375 P.2d 495 (1962).
The trial court has the right to weigh plaintiff's evidence on a motion for a nonsuit in a nonjury case. When the trial court has weighed the evidence and has apprized this court by findings of fact of the evidence it found credible or of the facts it found which would prevent plaintiff from recovering, this court will accept the findings of fact as verities unless we determine that there is no credible and substantial evidence to support the findings. We cannot, however, substitute our findings for those of the trial court.
In February 1962 defendant contracted to install a side sewer on plaintiff's property in the location indicated on the written contract. The side sewer was for the purpose of connecting plaintiff's home to the main sanitary sewer, thus eliminating the need for a septic tank and its drain field. The side sewer was installed in June 1962.
Plaintiff's theory is this: when defendant dug the ditch for the sewer, he dug up and did not replace certain drain pipes connected to the downspouts of plaintiff's house; that drainage was interrupted, causing the ground to soften. Water collected in the basement, walls cracked, and the chimney separated from the house.
Reading the entire record has not been very helpful. It is full of references by indication to a large map of the premises. The indications, having been made in the presence of the trial judge, were probably meaningful to him, but are of little use at the appellate level. For example, it is not clear whether the downspouts were connected to the septic tank drain field or had a drain field of their own which was interlaced with the septic tank drain field.
The record does, however, support the trial court's finding that the side sewer was installed by the defendant in approximately the same area where the septic tank drain field was located.
Specifically the trial court found:
That if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N. Fiorito Co. v. State
...In re Hansen's Estate, 66 Wash.2d 166, 401 P.2d 866 (1965); Jacobs v. Brock, 66 Wash.2d 878, 406 P.2d 17 (1965); Cowitz v. Miller, 68 Wash.Dec.2d 633, 414 P.2d 795 (1966). Two, the trial court may believe or accept as true all of plaintiff's evidence, accord to plaintiff the most favorable ......
-
Bennett Veneer Factors, Inc. v. Brewer
...oral opinion that he was weighing the evidence. Therefore, we are governed in this appeal by the rule set forth in Cowitz v. Miller, 68 Wash.2d 637, 414 P.2d 795 (1966): When the trial court has weighed the evidence and has apprized this court by findings of fact of the evidence it found cr......
-
Safeco Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co.
...substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. N. Fiorito Co. v. State, 69 Wash.2d 616, 419 P.2d 586 (1966); Cowitz v. Miller, 68 Wash.2d 637, 414 P.2d 795 (1966). Finally, it is argued that the trial court erred in its determination that the terms of the insurance contract in effect ......
-
Hatley v. West, 39536
...substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. N. Fiorito Co. v. State, 69 Wash.2d 616, 419 P.2d 586 (1966); Cowitz v. Miller, 68 Wash.2d 637, 414 P.2d 795 (1966). The judgment of the trial court is FINLEY, C.J., ROSELLINI and HALE, JJ., and ARMSTRONG, J. pro tem., concur. 1 An agistm......