In re City of Renton

• Decision Date: 21 December 1910
• Parties: In re CITY OF RENTON. v. DYKEMAN et al. CITY OF RENTON
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

112 P. 348

61 Wash. 330

In re CITY OF RENTON.

CITY OF RENTON v. DYKEMAN et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 21, 1910

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Robert H Lindsay, Judge pro tem.

Proceedings by the City of Renton to condemn the right to take water from a creek flowing through the lands of R. T. Dykeman and others. From a judgment awarding nominal damages only Dykeman and others appeal. Affirmed.

Farrell Kane & Stratton, for appellants.

Paul W Houser and L. Frank Brown, for respondent.

MORRIS J.

The city of Renton instituted a condemnation suit against appellants, seeking to acquire the right to take water from a creek flowing through appellants' lands. Trial was had, and verdict in the sum of $1 each awarded appellants. They made a motion for a new trial, which was denied. The court, in denying appellants a trial, incorporated his decision in the record, as follows: 'Superior Court, King Co., Wash. In the Matter of the Petition of the City of Renton. No. 67,178. The court, in denying the motions for a new trial in all the cases where Farrell, Kane & Stratton represented the respondents, stated that, in view of the fact that it is the undoubted law of this state that the jury are the sole judges of the facts, and that as I view the law as expressed by our Supreme Court, that where the jury has once passed upon the facts that the court is only justified in granting a new trial where the verdict of the jury is contrary to the weight of the evidence, I am constrained to overrule the motions for new trial, although as an individual I do not think that justice has been done by any of the verdicts, and this solely because I differ with many of the witnesses who testified in the case. Each of the respondents excepts to above, and excepts to the ruling of the court in denying his motion for a new trial. Exception allowed. The above is hereby made a part of the record herein. Dated Jan. 3, 1910. Robert H. Lindsay, Judge pro tem. Present: Attorneys for all parties.' This ruling is the error complained of.

If the court below indicated his opinion by the language used, and we assume he did, no other ruling was possible. The question was solely one of fact, and it was of no consequence that the court differed with some of the witnesses as to the extent of the damage. This is not an unusual thing in trials of this character. But, inasmuch as our system makes the jury the...