Berg v. Humptulips Boom & River Improvement Co.

Citations

• 38 Wash. 342
• 80 P. 528
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 1173

Syllabus

<p>Damages—Pleading—Complaint—Description of Personal Property—Definiteness. In an action to recover damages to property occasioned by flooding, a motion to make a complaint more definite and certain should be granted, where damage to lands, tenements, furniture, hay, live stock, lumber and other personal property is lumped at $2,000, without any particular description of the personal property damaged.</p> <p>Damages—To Live Stock—Financial Loss in Selling—Evidence—Gross Amount. In an action to recover damages to live stock occasioned by flooding plaintiff’s farm, it is error to permit the plaintiff to testify that he was damaged in the sum of $400, by reason of being compelled to sell his stock after his hay was destroyed, since financial loss does not come within the allegation, and also because a party cannot in such a case testify to the gross amount of damages sustained.</p> <p>Same—Gross Amount of Damages—Prospective Profits—Curing Error by Instructions. Error in permitting a party to testify to the gross amount of damages to live stock by reason of. being compelled to sell the same, is not cured by an instruction tnat he could not recover prospective profits to be made in keeping them over until spring.</p>