Gray v. Wikstrom Motors, Inc., 29077.
| Decision Date | 07 August 1943 |
| Docket Number | 29077. |
| Citation | 140 P.2d 497,18 Wn.2d 795 |
| Parties | GRAY v. WIKSTROM MOTORS, Inc., et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Action by Dr. G. Gray against Wikstrom Motors, Incorporated, and another, to recover damages occasioned by acts of defendants in the sale of an automobile to plaintiff. Verdict for plaintiff, and, from a judgment of dismissal entered upon an order granting defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; N. K. Buck, Judge.
J. P Tonkoff, of Yakima, for appellant.
Lincoln E. Shropshire and Bonsted & Nichoson, all of Yakima, for respondents.
Plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages occasioned by the fraudulent acts of the defendants in the sale to him of an automobile. The case is Before this court for the second time. On the first hearing plaintiff appealed to test the ruling of the trial court in granting a nonsuit. This we held as error, and the judgment was reversed on that ground. Gray v. Wikstrom Motors, Inc., 14 Wash.2d 448, 128 P.2d 490. On retrial the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. After a verdict, defendants made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in the alternative for a new trial. The court granted the motion for judgment n. o. v., and entered judgment dismissing the case. It was then ordered that, in the event that the order granting judgment n. o. v. should be reversed, defendants should have a new trial. The order granting a new trial was allowed upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict of the jury, and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff has appealed.
The one assignment of error is that the trial court erred in granting a judgment n. o. v. and a new trial.
In the former case we held that all of the nine elements necessary to make a case for the jury in a fraud case were presented by the evidence.
Our present duty is to ascertain from the evidence in this case whether appellant failed in that respect.
In order to affirm the judgment of the trial court, it is necessary that the evidence reveal a material change from that introduced at the first trial. If there is no material change in the evidence our former opinion becomes the law of this case.
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma
...second appeal of the same action. Buob v. Feenaughty Machinery Co., 4 Wash.2d 276, 103 P.2d 325, and cases cited; Gray v. Wikstrom Motors, Inc., 18 Wash.2d 795, 140 P.2d 497. It is also clear that the question of the plenary power of the legislature over municipal corporations was directly ......
-
Cooper v. Wesco Builders
...in misrepresenting standard selling price of automobile purchased in absence of any evidence of what such price was. Gray v. Wikstrom Motors, 18 Wash.2d 795, 140 P.2d 497. 'It is too well established to require the citation of cases that damage is a requisite element of actionability. It is......
-
Snell v. Ruppert
...P.2d 913; Smith v. La Forge, 1952, 173 Kan. 70, 244 P.2d 211; Jones v. Medlock, 1948, 201 Okl. 109, 202 P.2d 212; Gray v. Wikstrom Motors, 1943, 18 Wash.2d 795, 140 P.2d 497; and Allen v. California Mutual Building & Loan Association, 1943, 22 Cal.2d 474, 139 P.2d 321.9 Rule 72.1(d), W.R.C.......
-
State v. Bauers, 29820.
... ... principle was again recognized in the case of Gray v ... Wikstrom Motors, 18 Wash.2d 795, 140 P.2d ... ...