Sievers v. Dalles, 24 Wash. 302 (WA 3/22/1901)

• Citation: 24 Wash. 302
• Decision Date: 22 March 1901
• Docket Number: No. 3721.,3721.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Parties: PETER F. SIEVERS et ux., Respondents, v. DALLES, PORTLAND & ASTORIA NAVIGATION COMPANY, Appellant.

Page 302

24 Wash. 302

PETER F. SIEVERS et ux., Respondents, v. DALLES, PORTLAND & ASTORIA NAVIGATION COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 3721.

Supreme Court of Washington.

Decided March 22, 1901.

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS — SERVICE OF SUMMONS — AGENTS WITHIN THE STATE.

Under Bal. Code, § 4854, which provides that an action against a corporation may be brought in any county where the corporation has an office for the transaction of business, or any person resides upon whom process may be served against the corporation, and Id. § 4875, subd. 9, which provides that if suit he against a foreign corporation doing business within the state summons may be served on any agent of the corporation, service of process issued out of the superior court of Clarke county upon a purser and a wharfinger in the employ of a foreign corporation is sufficient, where the company was operating a line of steamers on the Columbia river, which, under the charge of the purser, received and discharged freight and passengers at Vancouver, landing regularly at the wharf there for that purpose, and hence making the wharf an office in this state for the transaction of such business.

ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE — HARMLESS ERROR.

Error in permitting the husband to testify that the value of the loss of his wife's services by reason of her sickness occasioned through the act of defendant was $2,000, instead of requiring the witness to state the facts and circumstances of the injury, for the purpose of allowing the jury to determine the amount, was harmless, where the verdict rendered was for $600.

NON-SUIT — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

Refusal to grant a non-suit is not error, when there is evidence, though conflicting, sufficient under the allegations of the complaint to sustain the verdict.

EXCESSIVE DAMAGES.

In an action to recover damages against a navigation company for breach of a contract of carriage, and for injuries arising from the negligent and wrongful and forcible landing by defendant of an aged woman at a wrong destination, and the carelessness of defendant's agents in the manner of putting her off upon a barren island, exposed to the inclemency of stormy weather from which they failed to rescue her but allowed her to make

her way home as best she could, which she did after two days travel, incurring sickness and great bodily discomfort from her exposure, a verdict for $600 does not indicate passion or prejudice on the part of the jury.

Appeal from Superior Court, Clarke County.—Hon. ABRAHAM L. MILLER, Judge. Affirmed.

Carey & Mays and Coovert & Stapleton, for appellant.

W.W. McCredie, for respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

DUNEAR, J.

Action for damages for injuries alleged to have been suffered by reason of the appellant, which is a navigation company, failing to carry the respondent Wilhelmina Sievers to her destination, and wrongfully putting her off of one of its boats on to an island in the Columbia river, where, through exposure to the elements, she became sick and suffered the damages complained of. Summons was served upon George Woodbury, the purser, and Oscar Johnson, the wharfinger of the company, at Vancouver, as agents of said company. Thereafter defendant appeared and moved to quash the service for the reason that the parties served were not agents of the company within the provisions of the law, and affidavits were filed in relation to the business of the corporation. The motion to quash was overruled and the defendant answered, and the action of the court in overruling the motion to quash the summons is the first error...