Toutle Logging Co. v. Hammond Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 25 March 1914
• Citation: 78 Wash. 568,139 P. 625
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: TOUTLE LOGGING CO. v. HAMMOND LUMBER CO.

139 P. 625

78 Wash. 568

TOUTLE LOGGING CO. v. HAMMOND LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 25, 1914

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Cowlitz County; Wm. T. Darch Judge.

Action by the Toutle Logging Company against the Hammond Lumber Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

O'Neill & Spaulding, of Castle Rock, for appellant.

McKenney & Brush, of Kelso, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

In this action the appellant, Toutle Logging Company, sought to recover from the respondent, Hammond Lumber Company, the purchase price of certain logs. In its complaint the appellant alleged that in the month of May, 1911, it sold and delivered to the respondent, at the request of its agent, one J. M. Ayers, two consignments of logs, the one at the agreed price of $111.58, and the other at the agreed price of $202.98, and that the respondent had neglected and refused to pay for the same. The answer was in effect a general denial. On the issues framed a trial was entered upon before the court and a jury. At the conclusion of the appellant's case in chief the respondent challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to justify a recovery, which challenge the trial court overruled. The respondent thereupon introduced evidence on its own behalf, at the conclusion of which rebuttal evidence was introduced by the appellant. At the conclusion of all of the evidence the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was renewed. The court at this time sustained the challenge, and instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. A verdict was returned accordingly, and a judgment entered thereon. From this judgment the Toutle Logging Company appeals.

The facts in the main are undisputed. The appellant, Toutle Logging Company, is engaged in the business of logging on the Toutle river. The logs in question were put into the river by the appellant, and floated down the stream into the booms of the Metcalf Boom Company, an independent booming and rafting company having no connection with either the appellant or respondent. The logs were by the latter company delivered to the Page Lumber Company in two consignments, and the same were by that company applied to its own uses. On the delivery of the logs the Metcalf Boom Company made duplicate reports of the transaction, forwarding one to the appellant and the other to the Page Lumber Company. The Page Lumber Company on receiving the reports forwarded its checks, drawn on a local bank, to the appellant for the purchase price of the logs. These checks were presented to the bank for payment, and were refused payment for want of funds to the credit of the drawer.

To charge the respondent with the price of the logs the appellant sought to show that it had sold the logs to the respondent, and that they were delivered to the Page Lumber Company on the order of the respondent. But we agree with the trial court that the evidence in no way tended to establish these facts. The agent of the appellant no doubt had some conversation with the agent of the respondent concerning the sale of logs by the appellant to the respondent, but no contract of sale was entered into for any specific logs, much less was there a contract for the sale of the particular logs...