Meacham v. Pederson

• Decision Date: 14 October 1912
• Citation: 127 P. 114,70 Wash. 479
• Parties: MEACHAM et al. v. PEDERSON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

127 P. 114

70 Wash. 479

MEACHAM et al. v. PEDERSON.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 14, 1912

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald Judge.

Action by W. M. Meacham and another, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Meacham & Babcock, against Hans Pederson. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed, and cause ordered dismissed.

Tucker & Hyland, of Seattle, for appellant.

Preston & Thorgrimson, of Seattle, for respondents.

MOUNT C.J.

This action was brought by the plaintiffs to recover damages for the breach of an alleged contract. The defendant denied that any contract had been entered into with plaintiffs. The case was tried to the court and a jury. After the evidence for the plaintiffs was in, defendant moved the court to take the case from the jury and enter judgment for the defendant. This motion was denied. The dvidence for the defendant was then heard, and, at the close of all of the evidence, the defendant moved the court for a directed verdict. This motion was also denied. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. The defendant has appealed.

It appears that the city of Tacoma was about to let a contract for the construction of the Nisqually power plant, an electric plant to be built by the city. This work was estimated to cost more than a million dollars. It was divided into eight sections. One section of the work consisted of a transmission line from La Grande to Tacoma, a distance of about 30 miles. The defendant was a general contractor, and was intending to bid upon the contract as a whole, which he did. The contract was awarded to him. The plaintiffs testified, in substance, that prior to the time the contract was let by the city of Tacoma to defendant they had an agreement with the defendant, to the effect that they would furnish to the defendant figures showing the cost of the various items included in section 8 of the contract, and also what the construction of that section would cost; that the defendant would use this estimate upon that section in making his bid for the whole work; and that, if the contract were awarded to the defendant, he would sublet section 8 to them at the figures furnished; that they did furnish the figures and estimate as agreed; and that the contract was awarded to defendant, who thereafter refused to let the work upon section 8 to them. They claim damages in a large sum.

We are convinced that the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs was not sufficient to sustain a verdict to the effect that a contract was made and entered into. It was not claimed that the plaintiffs were copartners with the defendant, or that they were to have any interest in the general contract. Their only claim was that defendant had agreed to sublet section 8 to them, provided he obtained the contract. The consideration was that they should estimate the cost of section 8 of the contract, and that this estimate would be the basis of the bids of the defendant upon the whole contract. They testified that they did make this estimate, but it was not shown that the...