Smith v. Harrington

161 P. 465, 93 Wash. 681, 1916 Wash. LEXIS 1241
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1916
DocketNo. 13358
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 P. 465 (Smith v. Harrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Harrington, 161 P. 465, 93 Wash. 681, 1916 Wash. LEXIS 1241 (Wash. 1916).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Suit upon two causes of action growing out of a written contract for the furnishing of labor and material in the construction of a concrete warehouse. Verdict for plaintiff.

The case presents questions of fact only, properly triable before a jury. No suggestion is made of any improper admission or rejection of evidence, nor is complaint made as to the instructions given. Appellants content themselves with a claim of error in the refusal of the lower court to give certain requested instructions.

After examining the issues, the evidence, and the instructions given, we conclude that the case was properly submitted [682]*682to the jury. The requested instructions are a specific elaboration of what the court said to the jury in a more general way in referring to the issues to be determined. We cannot say that the refusal to give them entitles the appellants to a new trial. Upon the whole, we conclude that the case was fairly submitted to the jury, and the judgment should be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wines v. Engineers Ltd. Pipeline Co.
319 P.2d 563 (Washington Supreme Court, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 P. 465, 93 Wash. 681, 1916 Wash. LEXIS 1241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-harrington-wash-1916.