Richards v. Kuppinger
| Decision Date | 06 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 32980,32980 |
| Citation | 278 P.2d 395,46 Wn.2d 62 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Harry RICHARDS, Appellant, v. Ralph KUPPINGER, Respondent. |
A. O. Colburn, Leo H. Fredrickson, Spokane, for appellant.
No appearance was made by the respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court granted defendant's motion for a nonsuit as to plaintiff's first cause of action. The case was tried to the court sitting without a jury.
In his fourth amended complaint (which contained twelve causes of action) plaintiff alleged in his first cause of action that defendant converted to his own use forty-five tons of hay valued at $1,125 owned by plaintiff and stored on a farm which plaintiff sold to defendant.
Plaintiff testified, however, that he had not sold the farm to defendant but that the latter had moved onto the farm in September, 1948, after plaintiff orally agreed to sell him the farm. The oral agreement was cancelled by plaintiff on October 15, 1948, when defendant failed to make the down payment of $450 agreed upon, plaintiff said. After the oral agreement was cancelled, plaintiff agreed to allow defendant to remain on the farm in return for his agreement to feed and care for plaintiff's horses and cattle on the place. Plaintiff testified that defendant had agreed to purchase from plaintiff the hay stored in his barn on the premises and to feed plaintiff's hay to plaintiff's horses and cattle, and that he had agreed that defendant could retain the proceeds from the sale of the milk produced by the cows.
On cross-examination by counsel for defendant, and on examination by the court, plaintiff was unable to testify as to when defendant agreed to pay for the hay or what he said when such alleged agreement was made. Plaintiff finally was asked by counsel for defendant:
Plaintiff admitted on cross-examination that he had never asked defendant to pay for the hay even once between October 15, 1948, and August, 1949, when he evicted him from the farm.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, the trial court granted a nonsuit as to the first cause of action, ruling that plaintiff's evidence wholly failed to prove any conversion of the hay. Furthermore, deeming the complaint amended to conform to the proof, the court also held that it could not find that there was any offer by plaintiff to sell, nor any agreement by defendant to buy, the hay nor could the court find any implied contract obligating defendant to purchase the hay fed by him to plaintiff's stock.
From the judgment of dismissal as to the first cause of action entered after the motion for a nonsuit was granted, plaintiff appeals. Defendant has not filed any appearance in this court.
In his brief appellant says:
'The trial court in granting the nonsuit in effect stated that there was no evidence or reasonable inference from evidence, after weighing the evidence in light most favorable to the appellant, which establishes a cause of action against the respondent.'
Appellant is in error as to the rule to be applied by this court in an appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after a motion for an involuntary nonsuit has been granted or a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence has been sustained in a non-jury trial. In a case tried to a jury, the test is whether there is any evidence or reasonable inference from evidence which will sustain plaintiff's case. But in a case tried to the court, the test applied in jury cases may or may not apply.
The trial court has the right to weigh plaintiff's evidence on a motion for a nonsuit in a non-jury case (which the court cannot do in a jury case). This has been the rule in this state since Lambuth v. Stetson & Post Mill Co., 14 Wash. 187, 44 P. 148.
In determining whether the trial court has weighed the evidence or has treated plaintiff's evidence as true, and has given him the benefit of the most favorable inferences to be drawn therefrom, this court looks first to the trial court's oral or memorandum opinion. O'Brien v. Schultz, Wash., 278 P.2d 322; Grichuhin v. Grichuhin, Wash., 272 P.2d 141. If the trial court's opinion discloses that it treated plaintiff's evidence as true and held, as a matter of law, that plaintiff has not established a prima facie case, findings of fact are unnecessary. In such case our review of the evidence is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence or reasonable inference from the evidence to establish a prima facie case for plaintiff. O'Brien v. Schultz, supra; Grichuhin v. Grichuhin, supra; Arneman v. Arneman, 43 Wash.2d 787, 264 P.2d 256.
However, if we determine from the oral or memorandum opinion (or from the findings of fact if there is no opinion) that the trial court has weighted the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roy v. Goerz
...facts which preclude plaintiff's recovery." N. Fiorito Co. v. State, 69 Wash.2d 616, 618, 419 P.2d 586, 588 (1966); Richards v. Kuppinger, 46 Wash.2d 62, 278 P.2d 395 (1955). If the trial court rules as a matter of fact, the court is required to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law......
-
Logan v. Logan
...facts which preclude plaintiff's recovery." N. Fiorito Co. v. State, 69 Wash.2d 616, 618, 419 P.2d 586 (1966); Richards v. Kuppinger, 46 Wash.2d 62, 278 P.2d 395 (1955). If the trial court rules as a matter of fact, the court is required to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law. CR ......
-
Jacobs v. Brock
...Before considering the testimony introduced we must then determine what the trial court did in this instance. In Richards v. Kuppinger, 46 Wash.2d 62, 278 P.2d 395 (1955), we laid down the rule for making this 'In determining whether the trial court has weighed the evidence or has treated p......
-
City of Seattle v. Heath
...of fact that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case. Substantial evidence supports these findings. Richards v. Kuppinger, 46 Wash.2d 62, 64, 278 P.2d 395 (1955). In this case, it is apparent from the oral decision and from the findings and conclusions of the trial court that t......