Frisell v. Surry
Decision Date | 13 December 1917 |
Docket Number | 14305. |
Citation | 169 P. 317,99 Wash. 201 |
Parties | FRISELL v. SURRY et al. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; A. W. Frater Judge.
Action by Charles Frisell against F. H. Surry and others. From a judgment dismissing the action on his opening statement plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Saunders & Nelson, of Seattle, for appellant.
Kerr & McCord, of Seattle, for respondents.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the lower court dismissing the action brought by the plaintiff, after having sustained defendants' motion therefor, made subsequent to the impaneling of a jury and at the conclusion of the opening statement of plaintiff's counsel, upon the ground that the opening statement did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The measure of the court's right to withdraw a case from the jury and direct judgment for the defendant upon the opening statement of counsel for the plaintiff has been clearly defined by this court. In Redding v. Puget Sound Iron & Steel Works, 36 Wash. 644, 79 P. 308, Judge Rudkin, with his usual clarity of diction and brevity of expression said:
This principle was applied and expressly approved in Brooks v. McCabe & Hamilton, 39 Wash. 62, 80 P. 1004. See, also, James v. Pearson, 64 Wash. 263, 116 P. 852.
The rule is so well settled that it requires no elaboration. It means simply what it says, that the opening statement must either include matter which constitutes a complete defense to the action, or must affirmatively and expressly exclude matter essential to the plaintiff's right of recovery before the trial court is warranted in entering judgment thereon. Where counsel merely outlines his case, leaving the details to be supplied by the testimony, judgment should not be entered upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith, 6 Div. 603.
...325, 62 P.2d 722; Caylor v. Casto et al., 137 Kan. 816, 22 P.2d 417; Carter v. King County, 120 Wash. 536, 208 P. 5, 6; Frisell v. Surry, 99 Wash. 201, 169 P. 317; Schripps v. Reilly, 35 Mich. 371, 388, 389, Am.Rep. 575; 1 Thompson on Trials, § 267. The procedure followed by the trial court......
-
Strmich v. Department of Labor and Industries
... ... no cause of action. Redding v. Puget Sound Iron & Steel ... Works, 36 Wash. 642, 79 P. 308; Frisell v ... Surry, 99 Wash. 201, 169 P. 317; Carter v. King ... County, [31 Wn.2d 601] 120 Wash. 536, 208 P. 5; ... Charada Inv. Co. v ... ...
- Frisell v. Surry
-
State v. Gallagher
...is expressly made, leaving only an isolated and determinative issue of law, the court may resolve that issue. See Frisell v. Surry, 99 Wash. 201, 169 P. 317 (1917); Strmich v. Department of Labor & Indus., 31 Wash.2d 598, 198 P.2d 181 (1948); Scott v. Rainbow Ambulance Serv., Inc., supra; H......