Starr v. Baird, 29891.
| Decision Date | 11 July 1946 |
| Docket Number | 29891. |
| Citation | 25 Wn.2d 381,170 P.2d 655 |
| Parties | STARR v. BAIRD et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2
Action by S. H. Starr against George Baird and others, copartners doing business as Baird, Finrow & Haws, and National Casualty Company to recover a deposit from defendants as plaintiff's agents. From an order vacating a judgment for plaintiff and granting defendants' motion for a new trial, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Hugh Todd, Judge.
Ryan Askren & Mathewson and Howard Sanders, all of Seattle, for appellant.
David J. Williams and Mary E. Burrus, all of Seattle, for respondents.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order granting a motion for a new trial, interposed by defendants, against whom a judgment had been entered in the following terms: 'It is hereby ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff do have and recover of and from the defendants, the agents of the plaintiff, the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) the property of M R. England.' (Italics ours.)
In vacating the judgment and granting defendants' motion for a new trial, the court entered the following order: '* * * it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment heretofore entered be set aside and vacated and that a new trial be had, conditioned on R. M [M. R.] England and Pauline England, his wife, proper and necessary parties, being joined as additional parties within one week.'
Appellant makes one contention only which it is necessary to discuss: that there is no statutory authority for granting a new trial for the purpose of bringing in additional parties. This contention is, no doubt, sound, but it does not follow that the order in this instance was beyond the power of the court. For the court has, in all cases, inherent, discretionary power to grant a new trial when necessary to subserve the ends of justice. Brammer v. Lappenbusch, 176 Wash. 625, 30 P.2d 947. That the trial court, in entering the order Before us, intended to, and did, exercise that inherent power is demonstrable by the situation presented upon admitted facts.
The respondents are real-estate brokers. Appellant listed a dwelling house for sale with them. They interested England in the property and he deposited $500 with them on the purchase price. The deal fell through, and appellant brought this action to recover the $500 deposit from respondents, as his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coppo v. Van Wieringen
... ... Yocum v. Department of Labor & Industries, 22 ... Wash.2d 72, 154 P.2d 306; Starr v. Baird, 25 Wash.2d ... 381, 170 P.2d 655; Potts v. Laos, supra ... We have ... ...
-
Cabe v. Department of Labor and Industries, 31150.
... ... Department of Labor & Industries, 22 Wash.2d 72, 154 ... P.2d 306; Starr v. Baird, 25 Wash.2d 381, 170 P.2d ... 655; Potts v. Laos, 31 Wash.2d 889, 200 P.2d 505 ... ...
-
Cabe v. Department of Labor and Industries
... ... Department of Labor & Industries, ... 22 Wash.2d 72, 154 P.2d 306; Starr v. Baird, 25 ... Wash.2d 381, 170 P.2d 655; Potts v. Laos, 31 Wash.2d ... 889, 200 P.2d ... ...
-
Potts v. Laos
...supra; Nagle v. Powell, 5 Wash.2d 215, 105 P.2d 1; State v. Elliott, 6 Wash.2d 393, 107 P.2d 927; Bond v. Ovens, supra; Starr v. Baird, 25 Wash.2d 381, 170 P.2d 655. (Sup.) § 399(7), providing that a new trial may be granted upon the ground 'that there is no evidence or reasonable inference......