Cameron v. Stack-Gibbs Lumber Co.

Citations

• 68 Wash. 539
• 123 P. 1001
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 1328

Syllabus

<p>Trial — Verdict—Construction. The language of a verdict or special finding is to be liberally construed with a view of arriving at the intent of the jury.</p> <p>Trial — Verdict—Special Findings — Intent—Explanation. The statement of the foreman of the jury, before discharge and in the presence of the jury, may be received by the court to explain the intent of the jury in answering special interrogatories.</p> <p>Trial — Verdict—Special Findings — Inconsistency. Under the rule that a special verdict should be given a construction that will support the general verdict, in an action on the joint contract of a corporation and two of its officers, a general verdict against all the defendants is not necessarily inconsistent with negative answers to special interrogatories asking whether the plaintiff entered into the contract intending at the time to contract with the officers individually, where the foreman of the jury explained that the questions were answered “no” in order to hold the officers individually responsible with the company, and it was evident that they understood that an affirmative answer would have held them solely responsible.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error — Instructions. In an action upon a joint contract in which there was a verdict against all the defendants, it is harmless error to give instructions permitting a joint or several judgment when no several contract had been pleaded or proved.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error — Instructions—Corporations —Representations. It is not prejudicially erroneous to instruct that if certain facts were true, officers of a corporation would have implied authority to contract for the company, instead of stating that the facts would be prima facie evidence of their authority, where the officers’ denial of authority amounted only to a denial of any formal conferring of authority, and the facts referred to consisted of the only evidence in the case upon the question of the apparent authority of the off