Godefroy v. Reilly
| Decision Date | 23 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | 18914. |
| Citation | 235 P. 8,134 Wash. 163 |
| Parties | GODEFROY v. REILLY et ux. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Oswald, Judge.
Action by W. D. Godefroy, doing business under the name and style of the Northern Pacific Land Exchange, against John Reilly and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
R. L Edmiston and Fred M. Williams, both of Spokane, for appellants.
O. C Moore, of Spokane, for respondent.
This is an action by respondent, as plaintiff, to recover a commission as broker upon an exchange of real estate between the appellants and one Hopkins, as shown in Reilly v Hopkins (Wash.) 234 P. 13, to which case reference may be had for a history of the transaction. The action was tried to a jury, but at the close of all of the testimony a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the defense and the cross-complaint was sustained, the jury discharged, and a judgment rendered for the plaintiff in the full amount claimed, from which the defendant has appealed.
Many questions are raised and discussed which we do not find it necessary to now mention. It will be sufficient to say that except in the matters hereinafter specifically referred to, we find no error on the part of the trial court.
The chief and vital questions are whether there was evidence on the part of appellants sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and whether or no the judgment in Reilly v. Hopkins supra, was determinative of the issues here. After a careful study of the record, we are convinced that there was in this case sufficient evidence on the part of the appellants to carry to the jury the question of the making by respondent of representations to the appellants, upon which they relied, to the effect that no lands in the irrigation district had been forfeited or sold to the district because of delinquent water assessments, and that the assessment of $10 per acre was a special charge for one particular year because of the necessity of certain improvements and repairs, not likely to be continued in effect or repeated, and that thereafter the annual water assessments would not exceed $1.50 per acre. We are not unmindful of the testimony of Mr. Vanderspeckt and others to the contrary, but, so far as such conversations related to the water charge, they are denied by the appellants, at least inferentially; and, moreover, Mr. Reilly testified that the only conversation which he had with Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Godefroy v. Reilly
...these same parties has received previous consideration before this court several times is evidenced by the reported decisions in 134 Wash. 163, 235 P. 8, and 140 Wash. 650, 250 P. 59; the same facts were collaterally involved in the previous case of Reilly v. Hopkins, 133 Wash. 421, 234 P. ......
-
Valley Land Office, Inc. v. O'Grady
...us that a jury could reasonably view these facts as constituting a breach of plaintiff's duty to its client. Godefroy v. Reilly, 134 Wash. 163, 165, 235 P. 8 (1925). We must conclude, therefore, that the trial judge erred in dismissing defendant O'Grady's counterclaim as a matter of law, an......
-
Godefroy v. Reilly
...of the jury. The assignment has its foundation in the opinion and direction of this court in the former appeal of the cause. 134 Wash. 163, 235 P. 8. It be remembered that, on the former trial, the trial court took the question of fraud of the plaintiff from the jury, discharged the jury, a......