Dawson v. Shearer
| Decision Date | 26 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 34743,34743 |
| Citation | 53 Wn.2d 766,337 P.2d 46 |
| Parties | Thomas A. DAWSON, Respondent, v. William J. SHEARER and Marjorie Ann Shearer, his wife, Appellants. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Zundel, Merges, Brain & Isaac, Seattle, for appellants.
Helsell, Paul, Fetterman, Todd & Hokanson, and Richard S. White, Seattle, for respondent.
Appellants, defendants below, appeal from a judgment against them for the balance due on the construction of a house.
The basic dispute is factual and the evidence is in direct conflict. In consonance with our decided cases, 1 appellants' counsel, in the opening brief, forthrightly concede the applicable rule of law:
'In this regard we fully appreciate that rule that a finding of the trial Court will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support it. * * *'
No useful purpose would be served by a narrative of the evidence. It is sufficient to say that it was sharply in conflict and that the findings of fact are amply supported by substantial evidence.
Appellants argue that the parol evidence rule was violated in admitting oral testimony to show the agreement. After the work was finished the parties did sign a contract, but the court found upon overwhelming evidence that this document 'did not incorporate therein the complete agreement of the parties.' Indeed, the appellants' answer specifically pleaded that the contract was partly in writing and partly oral.
Recently we reviewed this aspect of the so-called parol evidence rule in Barber v. Rochester, Wash., 328 P.2d 711, and need not now restate the analysis. The name is a misnomer for it is not an exclusionary rule of evidence, but one of substantive law.
The conclusion there reached is found in the following paragraph:
* * *'
The assignment is without merit.
This, likewise, disposes of the assignment that the court erred in refusing to require respondent to elect between the written contract or the oral one.
Appellants assign error upon the allowance in the judgment of costs to the respondent. The argument is that, because the amount claimed by responde...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton v. Wosepka
...Walker, 175 Okl. 366, 52 P.2d 737, 743--744; Seavey Hop Corporation v. Pollock, 20 Wash.2d 337, 147 P.2d 310, 316; and Dawson v. Shearer, 53 Wash.2d 766, 337 P.2d 46, 47, and citations. Professor Richard S. Hudson has collected, analyzed and criticized our own cases dealing with the problem......
-
Ban-Co Inv. Co. v. Loveless
...by the trial court as the trier of fact. University Properties, Inc. v. Moss, 63 Wash.2d 619, 388 P.2d 543 (1964); Dawson v. Shearer, 53 Wash.2d 766, 337 P.2d 46 (1959); Hankins v. American Pac. Sales Corp., 7 Wash.App. 316, 499 P.2d 214 (1972). After a review of the record, we find substan......
-
Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. v. Olympic Foundry Co., 3985-I
...by the trial court as the trier of fact. University Properties, Inc. v. Moss, 63 Wash.2d 619, 388 P.2d 543 (1964); Dawson v. Shearer, 53 Wash.2d 766, 337 P.2d 46 (1959); Hankins v. American Pac. Sales Corp., 7 Wash.App. 316, 499 P.2d 214 (1972). After a review of the record, we find substan......
-
Diel v. Beekman, 31--40213--I
...agreement is replaced or supplemented by the preponderate terms of the parol agreement. Barber v. Rochester, Supra; Dawson v. Shearer, 53 Wash.2d 766, 337 P.2d 46 (1959); Becker v. Lagerquist Bros., Inc., 55 Wash.2d 425, 348 P.2d 423 (1960); Kinne v. Lampson, 58 Wash.2d 563, 364 P.2d 510 (1......