Goldsby v. Stewart, 22392.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | BEALS, J. |
| Citation | 290 P. 422,158 Wash. 39 |
| Parties | GOLDSBY et al. v. STEWART et al. |
| Docket Number | 22392. |
| Decision Date | 29 July 1930 |
290 P. 422
158 Wash. 39
GOLDSBY et al.
v.
STEWART et al.
No. 22392.
Supreme Court of Washington
July 29, 1930
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Guy C. Alston, Judge.
Action by Thornton Goldsby and others against Robert Stewart and others. From a judgment dismissing the action, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed, with instructions.
A. E. Dailey and Jesse H. Davis, both of Everett, for appellants.
O. Duncan Anderson and J. W. Dootson, both of Everett, for respondents.
BEALS, J.
Plaintiffs, the owners of a brick building in the city of Everett, the upper story of which they had rented to a tenant who was conducting an apartment or lodging house therein, instituted this action against the sheriff of Snohomish county and two of his deputies, the commissioner of public safety of Everett, and the chief of police of that city, for the purpose of recovering damages for injuries to the building alleged to have been caused by defendants in the course of the execution of a search warrant, which had been lawfully procured by defendants, directing the search of the premises in question for intoxicating liquor. The [158 Wash. 40] search complained of was made March 8, 1928, plaintiffs alleging in their complaint that defendants destroyed and tore apart partitions in the building, tore up floors and casings, cut electric wires used for lighting the premises, and removed therefrom one of the entrance doors to the second floor, all to plaintiffs' damage in the sum of $209.20.
In their answer defendants admitted making the search, but denied that they had damaged plaintiffs' building. Defendants Rasmussen and Stewart, the commissioner of public safety and the chief of police, respectively, of the city of Everett, admit in their answer that they removed a door from the building, and alleged affirmatively that they took possession of the same for the purpose of using it as evidence upon the trial of certain persons who, it was anticipated, would be charged with a criminal offense; that the door was subsequently tendered to plaintiffs, who refused to accept it.
The action was tried to the court sitting with a jury, and upon the closing of the evidence the court sustained motions made by defendants for the discharge of the jury and the dismissal of the action. From the judgment of dismissal plaintiffs appeal, assigning error upon the denial of their motion for a new trial and upon the entry of the judgment.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mancini v. City of Tacoma, 97583-3
...officers executing a search warrant." Brutsche v. City of Kent , 164 Wash.2d 664, 671, 193 P.3d 110 (2008) ; see also Goldsby v. Stewart , 158 Wash. 39, 41, 290 P. 422 (1930) ("In executing a search warrant, officers of the law should do no unnecessary damage to the property to be examined.......
-
Brutsche v. City of Kent, 79252-6.
...... ¶ 13 Mr. Brutsche maintains that pursuant to this court's decision in Goldsby v. . 193 P.3d 115 . Stewart, 158 Wash. 39, 290 P. 422 (1930), the City is liable in negligence. ...Stewart, No. 22392 (Wash.Sup.Ct.), reprinted in 1 Brs. 158 Wash. (1930), and the defendants-respondents said they ......
-
De La Torre v. City of Renton, Case No. 2:14-cv-01779 BJR
...of another without sufficient privilege or if his actions on the property exceed the scope of that privilege. Goldsby v. Stewart , 158 Wash. 39, 41, 290 P. 422 (1930). A valid search warrant provides law enforcement with the limited privilege to enter and search a person's home in a reasona......
-
Brutsche v. City of Kent, No. 56620-2-1 (Wash. App. 7/17/2006), 56620-2-1
...individual law enforcement officers were sued for causing unnecessary damage during execution of a search warrant. Goldsby v. Stewart, 158 Wash. 39, 290 P. 422 (1930). However—whether Goldsby recognized a duty relevant to this case or not—Brutsche did not cite Goldsby until his reply brief.......
-
Mancini v. City of Tacoma, 97583-3
...officers executing a search warrant." Brutsche v. City of Kent , 164 Wash.2d 664, 671, 193 P.3d 110 (2008) ; see also Goldsby v. Stewart , 158 Wash. 39, 41, 290 P. 422 (1930) ("In executing a search warrant, officers of the law should do no unnecessary damage to the property to be examined.......
-
Brutsche v. City of Kent, 79252-6.
...... ¶ 13 Mr. Brutsche maintains that pursuant to this court's decision in Goldsby v. . 193 P.3d 115 . Stewart, 158 Wash. 39, 290 P. 422 (1930), the City is liable in negligence. ...Stewart, No. 22392 (Wash.Sup.Ct.), reprinted in 1 Brs. 158 Wash. (1930), and the defendants-respondents said they ......
-
De La Torre v. City of Renton, Case No. 2:14-cv-01779 BJR
...of another without sufficient privilege or if his actions on the property exceed the scope of that privilege. Goldsby v. Stewart , 158 Wash. 39, 41, 290 P. 422 (1930). A valid search warrant provides law enforcement with the limited privilege to enter and search a person's home in a reasona......
-
Brutsche v. City of Kent, No. 56620-2-1 (Wash. App. 7/17/2006), 56620-2-1
...individual law enforcement officers were sued for causing unnecessary damage during execution of a search warrant. Goldsby v. Stewart, 158 Wash. 39, 290 P. 422 (1930). However—whether Goldsby recognized a duty relevant to this case or not—Brutsche did not cite Goldsby until his reply brief.......