Maxham v. Berne
| Decision Date | 17 November 1915 |
| Docket Number | 12917. |
| Citation | 88 Wash. 158,152 P. 673 |
| Parties | MAXHAM v. BERNE et ux. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Ernest M. Card Judge.
Action by C. W. Maxham against F. A. Berne and wife, with counterclaims by the defendants. Judgment for defendants for balance after deducting allowance in plaintiff's favor and defendants appeal. Dismissed.
L. B Da Ponte and J. W. Quick, both of Tacoma, for appellants.
Marx & Conger and F. D. Oakley, all of Tacoma, for respondent.
Respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal for the reasons that the judgment appealed from has been paid by respondent, fully satisfied of record, the controversies involved have ceased to exist, and appellant has released all errors assigned on appeal.
There was a very complicated controversy between the parties, involving accounting between them after a dissolution of copartnership. Previous to this action there had been some litigation between them. In this action there were involved a number of claims sued for by respondent, and counterclaims of appellants. The case was tried on June 30, 1914. The trial judge directed a verdict for respondent in the sum of $197.82, and submitted to the jury for determination a counterclaim for $325 on the part of appellants for new rails purchased, in excess of the amount allowed by the dissolution agreement, but withdrew from their consideration certain other counterclaims set up by appellants which were rejected by the court. The jury allowed appellant $262.43, from which was deducted the $197.82 allowed by the direction of the court in respondent's favor, leaving a balance of $64.61 in appellants' favor, for which a verdict was rendered and entered, and on January 19, 1915, judgment therefor, together with $106 costs, was entered. Respondent paid the amount of the total judgment $173.45, including interest, into the registry of the court in full satisfaction of the judgment, and on May 1, 1915, after giving notice of appeal, appellants received and accepted the above sum and satisfied the judgment in the following terms:
The only judgment entered is as follows:
'It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the defendants F. A. Berne and wife do have and recover of and from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cottier v. Sullivan
... ... that part of the judgment which fixes the amount. See: ... Cromwell v. Burr, 9 Daly 482; Maxham v ... Berne, 88 Wash. 158, 152 P. 673. He may, of course, ... appeal from the judgment, and assign error only in the ... assessment of the ... ...
-
In re Bronson's Estate
... ... 626, 69 P. 12; Traves ... v. McLess, 32 Wash. 258, 73 P. 371; Trumbull v ... Jefferson County, 37 Wash. 604, 79 P. 1105; Maxham ... v. Berne, 88 Wash. 158, 152 P. 673. Authorities from ... other jurisdictions are also cited ... [55 P.2d 1077] ... ...
-
American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle
...will dismiss it. Cottier v. Sullivan, supra, 31 P.2d at page 678; Warren Mercantile Co. v. Myers, supra, 45 P.2d page 7; Maxham v. Berne, 88 Wash. 158, 152 P. 673. However, in California, such an appeal brings before the reviewing court all of the nonseverable portions. Blache v. Blache, su......
-
F. E. Warren Mercantile Co. v. Myers
... ... The judgment in the case at bar, as it should have been ... entered, was the net result of the entire controversies and ... proceedings. Maxham v. Berne, 88 Wash. 158, 152 P ... 673. It was an entirety, and no appeal can be taken from a ... part of it. Hampton v. Logan County, 4 Idaho 646, ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...114 Wn.2d 542, 789 P.2d 75 (1990): 22.3(5) Maxfield, In re Marriage of, 47 Wn. App. 699, 737 P.2d 671 (1987): 4.3(1)(a) Maxham v. Berne, 88 Wash. 158, 152 P. 673 (1915): 13.2(1) Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677, 132 P.3d 115 (2006): 12.7(1), 12.7(19) Maynard Inv. Co. v. McCann, 77 W......
-
§ 13.2 Acceptance of Benefits
...v. Port of Seattle, 66 Wn.2d 457, 459, 403 P.2d 368 (1965); Potter v. Potter, 46 Wn.2d 526, 527, 282 P.2d 1052 (1955); Maxham v. Berne, 88 Wash. 158, 160, 152 P. 673 (1915). This traditional rule, called the "acceptance of benefits doctrine," has been substantially modified by RAP Subject t......