Sweeney v. Lewis Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 July 1913
• Citation: 74 Wash. 303,133 P. 441
• Parties: SWEENEY v. LEWIS CONST. CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

133 P. 441

74 Wash. 303

SWEENEY v. LEWIS CONST. CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 11, 1913

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman Judge.

Action by Bo Sweeney against the Lewis Construction Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Preston & Thorgrimson and Turner & Hartge, all of Seattle, for appellant.

Dorr &amp Hadley, of Seattle, for respondent.

MOUNT J.

This is the second appeal in this case. When it was here before upon the appeal of this same appellant, we reversed the case upon the question of damages and sent it back for a new trial between the respondent and the appellant. In the opinion upon that appeal we said: 'The appellant corporation was entitled to have that measure of damages applied which would protect it and which at the same time would fully compensate respondent for any actual loss he may have sustained. * * * In other words, only such changes in values should be considered as were produced by or directly resulted from the partial performance of the work of regrading.' Sweeney v. Lewis Construction Co., 66 Wash. 490, 119 P. 1108. So that the only question to be determined upon the retrial was the amount of damages. The cause was retried upon that question. The trial court found that the appellant had damaged the respondent's property in the sum of $3,900 to which was added interest from the date the suit was brought, amounting in all to $4,558.45, for which amount a judgment was entered against the appellant. This appeal followed.

It is argued by the appellant that the damages allowed are excessive; that there was no depreciation or damage to the land; and that the allowance of interest was error. Upon the second trial it was stipulated that the evidence introduced at the first trial should be considered upon the second other evidence also was produced. The facts are fully stated in the former opinion of this court, which will be found in 66 Wash. beginning at page 490, 119 P. 1108. It is unnecessary to restate the facts at this time.

Counsel for appellant now contend that the damages found by the trial court upon the last trial were $2,000 to the houses which were located upon the property and $1,000 to the lots. It is true the trial court in rendering his oral decision in the case stated the damages as contended for by the appellant but the formal finding was to the effect that the property was damaged in the sum of $3,900. It is argued by the...