Patterson v. Wenatchee Canning Co.

Decision Date08 August 1910
Citation110 P. 379,59 Wash. 556
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesPATTERSON v. WENATCHEE CANNING CO.

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Chelan County; J. T. Ronald Judge.

Action by Fred N. Patterson against the Wenatchee Canning Company. From an order granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Reeves & Reeves, for appellant.

Ludington & Kemp, for respondent.

GOSE J.

There was a former appeal in this case. 53 Wash. 155, 101 P. 721. The case was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The plaintiff prosecutes this appeal from an order granting a new trial. A succinct statement of the admitted facts and issues is essential to a proper understanding of the case. The respondent is the owner and proprietor of a cold storage plant and on October 30, 1906, it executed a written memorandum of agreement, as follows: 'Wenatchee, Wash., Oct. 30, 1906. Agreement entered into between the Wenatchee Canning Co. and Fred N. Patterson, said canning company renting to Mr Patterson cold storage room No. 3 to be used for storing beef. Consideration $100 per month, or in proportion to that amount according to space used. Rental to commence Monday Nov. 5, 1906. Wenatchee Canning Co., per L. G. Olds.' About November 18th following, the appellant placed a quantity of fresh meat in respondent's cold storage room No. 3, a large part of which decayed and became unfit for use. Appellant alleges that the loss occurred through the failure of the respondent to keep the room at a proper temperature, and through its failure to keep pure, fresh air circulating through it. The respondent denied these charges of negligence, and averred affirmatively, in substance, that at the time of executing the memorandum agreement and subsequent thereto, it was agreed that the appellant should have complete control and supervision of the room, and that he should and did direct the manner in which it should be refrigerated and aired. This is put in issue by the reply. During the progress of the trial the respondent sought to prove the facts alleged in its affirmative defense and the evidence was excluded, the court being of the opinion that upon the former appeal we had held that the memorandum was a complete contract of bailment. In considering the motion for a new trial, the court concluded that it had erred in excluding the evidence.

The appellant contends that we ruled upon the former appeal that the writing was complete in itself; that it created a bailment and gave the bailee the exclusive possession of the property, and that evidence of a parol contemporaneous or subsequent agreement is inadmissible to establish the facts affirmatively pleaded in the answer. In this respect we think counsel has misconstrued our former opinion. What we held was that the record, the writing, and the parol testimony, admitted without objection, established the bailment. We did not hold that the writing itself had that effect. Indeed, a reference to the memorandum will disclose that it is incomplete. There could be no bailment until the meat had been stored. The storage did not take place until some two weeks after the writing was signed. It is well settled that a bailee may by contract exempt himself from liability except for his own fraud or negligence. 5 Cyc. 175. In this case the testimony of the appellant discloses that the respondent did not have the exclusive possession of the meat. It gave no receipt, and the appellant stored and withdrew it at his pleasure. A special contract of bailment prevails against general principles of law applicable in the absence of an express agreement. Butler v. Greene, 49 Neb. 280, 68 N.W. 496.

We think the issues presented for determination were: (1) What was the contract; who was to direct the temperature of the room, the placing of the meat, and the circulation of the air? And (2) if there was no express contract, then it was the duty of the respondent to use reasonable care for the preservation of the property. The determination of the first question depends, not upon the memorandum alone which is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • American Nursery Products, Inc. v. Indian Wells Orchards
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 20, 1990
    ...Sporsem v. First Nat'l Bank, 133 Wash. 199, 233 P. 641 (1925) (preprinted form for a safe deposit box); Patterson v. Wenatchee Canning Co., 59 Wash. 556, 110 P. 379 (1910) (public cold storage company); Carstens Packing Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 58 Wash. 239, 108 P. 613 (1910) (common ca......
  • Alaska Coast Co. v. Alaska Barge Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • April 25, 1914
    ... ... and the respondent's liability must be measured by that ... instrument. Patterson v. Wenatchee Canning Co., 59 ... Wash. 556, 110 P. 379. In that case we said: 'A special ... ...
  • Ramsden v. Grimshaw
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1945
    ... ... responsibility for one's own negligence or fraud ... Patterson v. Wenatchee Canning Co., 59 Wash. 556, ... 110 P. 379; Sporsem v. First National Bank of ... ...
  • St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Chas. H. Lilly Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1956
    ...the respective duties are fixed by contract, and the respondent's liability must be measured by that instrument. Patterson v. Wenatchee Canning Co., 59 Wash. 556, 110 P. 379. In that case we said: 'A special contract of bailment prevails against general principles of law applicable, in the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT