Powelson v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 29 October 1915
• Docket Number: 12616.
• Citation: 152 P. 329,87 Wash. 617
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: POWELSON et al. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

152 P. 329

87 Wash. 617

POWELSON et al. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

No. 12616.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 29, 1915

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Kenneth Mackintosh, Judge.

Action by P. Powelson and W. C. Powelson against the City of Seattle. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed.

James E. Bradford and Melvin S. Good, both of Seattle, for appellant.

Wm Parmerlee, P. D. Hughes, and Thos. F. Murphy, all of Seattle for respondents.

MORRIS C.J.

This is an action by P. Powelson and W. C. Powelson, partners engaged in the manufacture of incubators, doing business as the Seaport Construction Company, to recover for damage claimed to have been caused by water, through the negligence of the city in the construction of a drain. The plaintiffs' plant was located in the basement of a building at Rainier boulevard and Fifty-Seventh avenue in the city of Seattle. The building fronted on the boulevard and Lake Washington and was located in a ravine or hollow which extended from the lake to the high ground back of the building. Several years before the injury complained of, the city had improved Rainier boulevard. A fill of about 12 feet had been made across the ravine, and a plank culvert put in to allow water to pass under the fill into the lake. On January 22, 1914 this drain proved inadequate to carry off the water, and as a consequence the basement occupied by the plaintiffs filled with water to a depth of several feet, damaging their tools, materials, and manufactured stock. Several days later, men in the employ of the city dug up the drain, which was found filled with sand and rocks. Plaintiffs filed a claim for damages, which was disallowed, and this action then begun. The cause was tried to the court, and from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs the city has appealed.

1. At the conclusion of the testimony the trial court rendered an oral opinion, holding that, the grading of Rainier boulevard being an original grade, the city was not liable for any damage occasioned thereby, and dismissed the case. A timely motion for a new trial was made by the respondents and denied by the court. The court, however, of its own motion, set aside the former dismissal and directed judgment for the respondents. Findings and conclusions in favor of respondents were then signed by the court, and judgment given for the full amount of their claim. The action of the court in setting aside the general findings and dismissal of the action is now assigned as error. While the practice in several of the states does not permit the court, upon motion for a new trial, to set aside the findings and then enter findings for the adverse party and grant judgment thereon (29 Cyc. 1026), the trial courts of this state have always been conceded the power to correct their own errors at any time prior to judgment, and a trial judge may, either upon motion of either party or on his own motion, set aside erroneous findings previously made and enter proper findings.

2. The sufficiency of the claim filed is attacked by the city on the ground that it does not comply with the charter or statutory requirements as to address of the claimant. The claim is by P. and W. C. Powelson, doing business as the Seaport Construction Company. The residence...