Carstens v. Earles

Citations

• 26 Wash. 676
• 67 P. 404
• 1901 Wash. LEXIS 703

Syllabus

<p>TRIAL-INSTRUCTIONS-CONSTRUCTION AS A WI-IOLE.</p> <p>Although detached expressions in the courts’ charge to the jury, if considered as independent expressions, may be technically erroneous, yet when the instructions as a whole fairly state the law and do not mislead the jury, there is no prejudicial error.</p> <p>SAME-REPLEVIN-INSTRUCTION AS A WHOLE.</p> <p>In an action to recover possession of an engine which plaintiffs claimed to have loaned a logging company, but which defendants claimed had been supplied to such company under a written contract which provided, in consideration of certain agreements,, that plaintiffs should furnish such company all necessary supplies, such as provisions, meats, hay, feed, and all other necessaries required to carry on the logging business except horses, mules and cattle, an instruction that the jury’s verdict should be in favor of defendants, if they believed from the evidence that the written contract had never been abrogated and that the ownership of the engine vested in the logging company, was proper where the evidence showed that the parties to such written contract had furnished axes, saws, grindstones, peevies, chains and wire cable thereunder, and it was proper to leave it to the jury to determine whether the engine had been furnished in the same way. same —</p> <p>Where there was evidence that a partnership had expressly assumed to pay an indebtedness on a logging 'outfit belonging to one of the partners and used by the copartnership, an instruction is not misleading as intimating that one partner can take partnership property to pay his individual debts, because it charges the jury that if they believe a certain engine became the property of the partnership and that the latter, by its managing partner, transferred it to another in consideration of an antecedent debt, who in turn transferred it to defendants upon their promise to pay therefor, then their verdict should be for defendants.</p> <p>SAME-COMMENT ON EVIDENC