Sievers v. Dalles, P. & A. Nav. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1901 |
| Citation | 24 Wash. 302,64 P. 539 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | SIEVERS et ux. v. DALLES, P. & A. NAV. CO. |
Appeal from superior court, Clarke county; A. L. Miller, Judge.
Action by Peter F. Sievers and another against the Dalles, Portland & Astoria Navigation Company. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Carey & Mays and Coovert & Stapleton, for appellant.
W. W McCredie, for respondents.
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 onto 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 alleged. We think the motion was properly overruled. Section 4854, 2 Ballinger's Ann Codes p St., 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 such corporation, unless otherwise provided in this Code.' The corporation received and discharged freight and passengers at Vancouver, and this business was in charge of the purser, who was certainly one of the company's agents looking after this, with other, business of the company. The appellant's steamers regularly landed at the wharf in Vancouver, and regularly discharged and received passengers and freight. To that extent it was certainly doing business in the state, and the wharf was an office for the transaction of such business. Paragraph 9 of section 4875, which provides the manner of service of summons, provides that, if the suit be against a foreign corporation or nonresident joint-stock company or association doing business within the state, the summons may be served on any agent of the corporation. It does not specify any particular kind of agent, and we think that both the wharfinger and the purser were agents within the meaning of the law. Upon the trial the verdict was for the plaintiffs in the sum of $600, for which amount judgment was rendered.
The second allegation is that the court erred in allowing Mr Sievers, the husband of the respondent, to testify that the loss of Mrs. Sievers' services by reason of her sickness was $2,000. It is difficult from the record to tell just what was objected to. Certainly, proof of loss of...
To continue reading
Request your trial