Easter v. Hall

• Decision Date: 22 June 1895
• Parties: EASTER v. HALL ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

40 P. 728

12 Wash. 160

EASTER v. HALL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 22, 1895

Appeal from superior court, Clallam county; James G. McClinton Judge.

Action by Mary Easter against S. L. Hall and another for damages to property caused by defendant's negligence. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Trumbull & Trumbull, for appellant.

W. L Marquardt and R. C. Wilson, for respondents.

SCOTT J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit. The first three paragraphs of the complaint are as follows: "(1) That she (plaintiff) is now, and at all the times hereinafter mentioned was, the owner and in the possession of those certain premises situated in the city of Port Angeles Clallam county, Washington, known as the 'Port Angeles Cannery,' wherein she had her residence, and carried on the business of canning clams and packing fish for the market. (2) That the defendants, S. L. Hall and William Bishop, Jr., are a partnership doing business as loggers under the firm name of Hall & Bishop. (3) That on or about the 10th day of October, 1893, the defendants were the owners of a certain boom of logs, which they towed, or procured to be towed, into the harbor of Port Angeles, and which boom of logs they carelessly and negligently caused to be fastened at or near the residence and cannery of this plaintiff, and which boom of logs the said defendants, their servants or agents, carelessly and negligently left, without any one being in the charge of them, or to look after them and was so insecurely, negligently, and carelessly fastened that on or about the night of the 23d day of November, 1893, broke loose from their fastenings, and were driven with great force and violence against the piles and timbers upon which the residence and cannery of this plaintiff rested, knocking out a great many of said piles, and utterly wrecking and ruining said premises, and endangering the lives of the occupants, to her damage in the sum of three thousand dollars." An answer was filed, admitting the ownership of the logs by the defendants, but denying all the other matters alleged in the third paragraph of the complaint. Two affirmative defenses were pleaded,-the first being that the logs were securely fastened, and were broken loose by a storm of unusual violence; and the second, that the damage was caused in part by the negligence of the plaintiff.

It is claimed that the court granted a nonsuit on the ground that it appeared from the testimony that the defendants had entered into a contract with the owners of a certain tugboat to tow the logs in question to Port Hadlock, and...