Crawford v. Smith

Citations

• 127 Wash. 77
• 219 P. 855
• 1923 Wash. LEXIS 1237

Syllabus

<p>Appeal (437) — Review—Harmless Error — Pleading. A judgment for tbe value of betterments cannot be objected to on tbe ground that tbe cross-complaint tberefor did not allege that tbe betterments enhanced tbe value of tbe property, where tbe complaint, fairly interpreted, relates to tbe increase in tbe value, and evidence was introduced without objection that tbe improvements increased tbe market value of tbe property.</p> <p>Improvements (4) — Compensation—Measure of Damages. Tbe measure of damages for tbe value of improvements, when tbe vendors made no false representations but were unable to perform their contract of sale by reason of a defect in their title, is tbe return of tbe amount paid on tbe contract, with interest, together with tbe enhancement of tbe value of tbe property caused by tbe improvements reasonably and necessarily made by tbe vendee while in possession.</p> <p>Same (4) — Compensation—Repairs or Betterments. In an action to recover for betterments, findings that tbe expenditures were reasonably necessary to make tbe premises suitable as a home for which it was purchased and enhanced tbe value of the property, sustain a judgment tberefor, and are not subject to tbe objection that the expenditures were for repairs and not for betterments.</p> <p>Same (4) — Compensation—Defenses. It cannot be urged in defense of an action for betterments that tbe plaintiffs knew of tbe defects in title and took tbe land at their peril, where defendants warranted tbe title and assured tbe same through litigation extending to tbe supreme court, and tbe betterments were within tbe contemplation of the parties and essential for tbe occupation of the premises.</p> <p>Appeal (117) — Preservation of Grounds — Objection to Complaint. Plaintiff cannot assign error in that it was improper to try tbe issues in the cross-complaint of an intervener who was brought into the action by tbe defendant, where plaintiff’s motion to strike the cross-complaint was not disposed of in