Seidell v. Taylor

Decision Date12 August 1915
Docket Number12517.
Citation151 P. 41,86 Wash. 645
PartiesSEIDELL et al. v. TAYLOR et ux.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Benton County; O. R. Holcomb Judge.

Action by C. B. Seidell and S. A. Harper, copartners, against E. W R. Taylor and wife. From a judgment for plaintiffs defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Linn & Boyle, of Prosser, for appellants.

McGregor & Fristoe, of Prosser, for respondents.

PARKER, J.

This is an action for damages claimed as the result of the defendants' wrongful act causing the loss of the plaintiffs' business to them. The trial in the superior court resulted in verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the sum of $750, from which the defendants have appealed.

The nature and ground of respondents' claim is set forth in their complaint, after alleging their partnership, as follows:

'That on or about the 1st day of December, 1912, the plaintiffs herein leased from the defendants a salesroom bakeroom, and bake oven, and purchased the equipment and business of the 'Quality Bakery,' then being conducted in said rooms in Prosser, Wash., and thereafter until the 31st day of August, 1913, personally conducted a general bakery business at said place. That with careful personal management and diligent labor plaintiffs steadily increased said business after entering upon the same, until on the said 31st day of August, 1913, they had an established business worth the sum of $2,000. That on the aforesaid 31st day of August, 1913, the defendants entered the plaintiffs' said place of business, and the defendant E. W. R. Taylor aided and assisted by the defendant May Taylor, viciously assaulted the plaintiffs and each of them, and did strike, beat, bruise, maltreat, and injure each of said plaintiffs with a heavy iron instrument, thereby rendering them both unable to carry on or conduct said business or serve their customers with goods thereafter. That when said assault was committed as aforesaid the defendants thereby created in said place a public brawl and a bloody fight, which attracted the attention of great numbers of people, and thereupon said place became known as the place where said fight occurred, and because thereof plaintiffs' customers and the people of Prosser and vicinity generally avoided said place of business so that it became impossible to conduct a bakery business successfully on said premises. That by reason of plaintiffs' injuries aforesaid the plaintiffs were unable to serve their customers, and by reason of their said place of business becoming marked as aforesaid, as the place where said assault and fight occurred, plaintiffs immediately lost their entire patronage, and their business thereby became ruined, all to their loss and damage in the sum of $2,000.'

It is first contended by counsel for appellants that this complaint does not state facts constituting a cause of action. The argument seems to be that, since it is an action seeking recovery of damage caused to the partnership, such damage cannot result from a mere assault upon the members of the partnership, but that the only cause of action resulting therefrom, if any, is personal to each member assaulted. We think, however, that in view of the nature and place of the assault as alleged, it being in the nature of a public brawl in the place of business of the partnership and resulting in injury to the partnership business, the facts alleged do constitute a cause of action entitling the partnership to relief as such. We are of the opinion that the trial court did not err in overruling appellant's demurrer to the complaint.

It is also contended in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • City of Seattle v. Blume
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 13, 1997
    ...525 (1905). We have recognized the tort in its various forms. Jones v. Leslie, 61 Wash. 107, 112 Pac. 81 (1910); Seidell v. Taylor, 86 Wash. 645, 151 Pac. 41 (1915); Pacific Typesetting Co. v. International Typographical Union, 125 Wash. 273, 216 Pac. 358, 32 A.L.R. 767 (1923); Sears v. Int......
  • Caruso v. Local Union No. 690 of Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, 28
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • November 4, 1982
    ...396 P.2d 148 (1964).4 Cherberg v. Peoples Nat'l Bank, supra; King v. Seattle, 84 Wash.2d 239, 247, 525 P.2d 228 (1974); Seidell v. Taylor, 86 Wash. 645, 151 P. 41 (1915); St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. v. Wade, 607 F.2d 126 (5th Cir.1979); Antwerp Diamond Exch. of Am., Inc. v. Better Business ......
  • Clark v. Figge
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1970
    ...636, 146 N.W. 830, 835. See, similarly, Sparks v. McCreary, 156 Ala. 382, 47 So. 332 (loss of customers and employees); Seidell v. Taylor, 86 Wash. 645, 151 P. 41 (loss of goodwill of business); Shell Oil Co. v. State Tire & Oil Co., 126 F.2d 971 (6th Cir.) (loss of profits); Morrison v. In......
  • Cherberg v. Peoples Nat. Bank of Washington
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1977
    ...an early case we concluded that a landlord may be held liable for the tort of interfering with his lessee's business. Seidell v. Taylor, 86 Wash. 645, 151 P. 41 (1915). There the plaintiff maintained a bakery on premises leased from the defendant. The lessor entered the premises and instiga......
  • 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