Olsen v. White, 31332.
| Decision Date | 23 August 1950 |
| Docket Number | 31332. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | OLSEN, v. WHITE et al. |
Department 1.
R. W. Miller, Bremerton, for appellants.
Ralph Purvis, James B. Sanchez, Bremerton, for respondent.
Plaintiff commenced action against defendants for work and labor allegedly performed at defendants' special instance and request. Paragraph 3 of the complaint alleged the following itemized statement of account:
"1/1/48 No. 4207 $1565.25 Paid on acct
1/28/48 No. 4236 44.16 8/4 $250.00
3/4/48 No. 4440 233.33 8/5 50.00
3/16/48 No. 4474 3.86 10/14 300.00
6/8/48 No. 4850 1286.46 1/12/48 300.00
5/17/48 No. 4774 6.70 5/4/48 500.00
11/22/48 No. 89 85.58 Credit ret'd
_________ mdse 300.00
$3225.34 _________
1700.00 $1700.00"
_________
$1525.34
After denying the allegations of Paragraph 3, defendants set up what they designated 'An Affirmative Defense and Cross-Complaint,' wherein they alleged: That defendant corporation was desirous of installing a fertilizer plant and that plaintiff represented himself as being a licensed engineer, qualified to make such installations; that plaintiff and defendant corporation entered into an agreement whereby plaintiff, for a consideration of $722.00 agreed to supply a dryer shell, an agitator, complete with bearings, a burner and blower with ducts to meet the needs of defendant that defendant advised plaintiff that the equipment would have to be installed in such a manner as to permit production of eighty to one hundred bales of peat moss fertilizer having a moisture content of twenty per cent; that plaintiff represented to defendant that he could and would furnish the equipment of sufficient strength and workmanship to produce defendants' requirement.
That plaintiff installed the equipment under the contract, but that the equipment was faulty and installation was not done in a workmanlike manner, and defendant has not been able to use it for any purpose and it will be necessary for the equipment to be taken out and new equipment and installation be made; that plaintiff has for many months attempted to place the equipment in a working condition, without avail; that the extra charges made by plaintiff over and above the original contract price agreement have resulted by reason of plaintiff's endeavor to carry out the terms of his original contract; that as a result defendant corporation has been damaged in the sum of $1700.00 (the total sum paid to plaintiff), and further at the rate of $120.00 per day for a period of fourteen months. Plaintiff, by reply, denied the above allegations.
At the close of all of the testimony the trial court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss the cross-complaint and directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the full amount prayed for, and judgment was entered accordingly. Defendants moved for judgment n. o. v., or, in the alternative, for a new trial. Upon the denial of both motions defendants appealed.
A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a motion for nonsuit, a motion for a directed verdict, or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict admits the truth of the evidence of the party against whom the motion is made and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom, and requires that the evidence be interpreted most strongly against the moving party and in the light most...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman v. Navarre
...of the evidence, we are required to interpret the evidence in this case in the light most favorable to the case in the sen v. White, 37 Wash.2d 62, 221 P.2d 542. Considering the evidence in this light, we find that respondent, in its catalogs and technical literature, made representations t......
-
Myers v. Little Church by the Side of the Road
...The rule which we have applied, and which should govern both the trial court and this court, is stated in the recent case of Olsen v. White, Wash., 221 P.2d 542, 543, as follows: 'A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a motion for nonsuit, a motion for a directed verdict, or a mot......
-
La Moreaux v. Fosket
...that the evidence be insterpreted most strongly against the defendant and in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Olsen v. White, 37 Wash.2d 62, 221 P.2d 542. We shall be governed by the above rule in our approach to the problem involved in this appeal. Fortunately, we shall experienc......
-
Wardhaugh v. Weisfield's Inc., 32522
... ... Olsen v. White, 37 Wash.2d 62, 221 P.2d 542; Myers v. Little Church by the Side of the Road, 37 Wash.2d ... ...