title:
Skagit Railway & Lumber Company, Appellants, vs H D Cole Appellee, brief of Appellee.
title:
55
creator:
H. D. Cole
contributor:
Ronald
contributor:
Piles
date:
1890-10
publisher:
Washington State Supreme Court
type:
Civil
subject:
Contract
subject:
Remedies
language:
eng
format:
application/pdf
description:
Prior History: Appeal from Superior Court, Skagit County.Continuance – Amendment – Abuse of discretion – Breach of Contract – Damages – Evidence – Argument of Counsel – The refusal of the superior court to grant defendant a continuance on account of the absence of its principal counsel, who, it was rumored, had been drowned, is not such an abuse of discretion as to justify a reversal of the judgment in a cause, especially where defendant was represented by other attorneys, and had proceeded to trial with the expectation that such counsel would arrive before any material progress had been made in the cause before continuance was asked for. (Hoyt, J., dissents.)The refusal of the superior court to permit defendant to amend its answer so as to set up another defense, after the plaintiff had rested his case, which amendment would have necessitated a continuance to enable plaintiff to procure witnesses to meet the new defense, is not such an abuse of discretion as to justify a reversal of the judgment.Under a contract whereby plaintiff was to cut timber on defendant’s land at a certain rate of stumpage, and defendant was to furnish him with supplies during the continuance of the contract, the plaintiff, in an action for breach thereof, can recover expenses incurred by him for repeated trips from his camp to defendant’s store, made with a reasonable expectation of getting the supplies needed, based upon information furnished by defendant.Where the complaint alleges that plaintiff was prevented from carrying on his business by reason of defendant’s failure to furnish supplies, and that plaintiff could not procure and pay for supplies elsewhere, proof is admissible to show that plaintiff had attempted to procure supplies from other parties and had failed to get them.In an action for breach of contract to furnish plaintiff supplies for carrying on certain logging operations, if defendant knew, when it entered into the contract, that plaintiff was unable to obtain the necessary supplies elsewhere, and that when it ceased furnishing same that plaintiff would be compelled to abandon the enterprise or be seriously embarrassed in its further execution, the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the logs which he could have put in the market with the full force he could have operated had the supplies been furnished as contracted, and the value of the logs he did put in with the diminished force, less the cost of getting out and handling such excess. (Hoyt, J., dissents.)Where statements transgressing the reasonable limits of argument to a jury are made under an apparent bona fide belief that they are permissible under the proof, and no objection is made thereto at the time, the party aggrieved must be content with an instruction to the jury to disregard such statements
relation:
Skagit R. & L. Co. v. Cole, 2 Wash. 57 (1891)
relation:
25 P. 1077
rights:
These materials are public records. Please see Washington State Court Rules: General Rules 31 for details https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_31_00_00.pdf