Schatz v. Heimbigner
| Decision Date | 15 December 1914 |
| Docket Number | 12124. |
| Citation | 144 P. 901,82 Wash. 589 |
| Parties | SCHATZ v. HEIMBIGNER et ux. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Lincoln County; T. L. McCroskey, Judge.
Action by John V. Schatz against George Heimbigner and wife. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
APPEAL AND ERROR (s 853*)--ABSENCE OF EXCEPTIONS--REVIEW.
Where no exceptions were taken to the instructions, they became the law of the case, and alleged error contrary to the instructions cannot be reviewed.
[Ed Note.--For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. ss 1524, 3405; Dec. Dig. s 853.*]
* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
W. M Nevins, of Odessa, and Merritt, Oswald & Merritt, of Spokane for appellants.
This action was brought to recover $942.64, an alleged overpayment upon a contract for the delivery of wheat. The defendants denied the allegations of the complaint in respect to the overpayment, and alleged affirmatively that all business dealings between plaintiff and the defendants had been settled and adjusted before the commencement of the action. This was put in issue by the reply. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount sued for. The defendants have appealed.
The appellants assign a single error, viz., that the court erred in overruling their motion for a new trial. The argument is 'that there was nothing from which the jury could conclude that a settlement of the account was not had' prior to the commencement of the action. The court instructed the jury that the burden was upon the appellants to establish the fact of the settlement by a preponderance of the evidence. It also instructed the jury that, if it should find that there was a preponderance of the evidence to the effect that only a portion of the wheat contracted for was delivered to the respondent and that he paid to the appellants a larger sum of money than the contract value of the wheat delivered, the respondent was entitled to recover the difference between the contract value of the wheat delivered and the amount paid to the appellants. No error is assigned to the instructions. There is evidence which warranted the jury in concluding that there was an overpayment on the wheat actually delivered to the amount of the verdict and judgment. The error arose from the fact that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Schelin
...the jury is properly instructed, review for evidence sufficiency proceeds unaltered as a matter of law. See, e.g., Schatz v. Heimbigner, 82 Wash. 589, 144 P. 901 (1914), cited with approval in State v. Hickman, 135 Wash.2d 97, 102, 954 P.2d 900 I find it startling that the Chief Justice wou......
-
State v. Hickman, 65141-8
...a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence of the added element. Barringer, 32 Wash.App. at 887-88, 650 P.2d 1129; Schatz v. Heimbigner, 82 Wash. 589, 590, 144 P. 901 (1914) ("These alleged errors are not available to the appellants, because they are at cross purposes with the instructions ......
-
State v. Camarata
...may include a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence of the added element. Barringer, 32 Wn. App. at 887-88; Schatz v. Heimbigner, 82 Wash. 589, 590, 144 P. 901 (1914) ("These alleged errors are not available to the appellants, because they are at cross purposes with the instructions of t......
-
Schneider v. Noel
...743, 46 P. 407; Dyer v. Middle Kittitas Irr. Dist., 40 Wash. 238, 82 P. 301; Sexsmith v. Brown, 61 Wash. 164, 112 P. 337; Schatz v. Heimbigner, 82 Wash. 589, 144 P. 901; Bullis v. Ball, 98 Wash. 342, 167 P. 942; v. Union Gap Irr. Dist., 98 Wash. 412, 167 P. 1085; Risdon v. Hotel Savoy Co., ......