Cummings v. Weir

Citations

• 37 Wash. 42
• 79 P. 487
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 668

Syllabus

<p>Appeal and Ebrob — Review—Evidence. It is harmless error to receive secondary evidence as to records, where the records were afterwards introduced in evidence.</p> <p>Contracts — Evidence oe Entibe Conversation — Relevancy. Upon an issue as to the execution of a verbal contract to pay for certain information relative to timber and homestead locations, where the defendants on the same day sought to obtain a reduction of the price, the plaintiff is entitled to detail all the conversation that then took place, as tending to show whether the contract had been made, and it is not error to refuse to strike evidence of a remark then made by plaintiff impugning defendants’ honesty.</p> <p>Trial — Comment on Facts — Appeal—Review—Cueing Error by Instructions. Where the plaintiffs had pleaded on a quantum, meruit and the proof showed an express contract, it is not reversible error that the court, during the progress of the trial in interrogating counsel concerning the relation of the pleadings to the evidence, unlawfully commented on the facts by stating that the proof clearly showed an express contract, where the error was subsequently cured by full instructions as to the province of the jury alone to determine the existence of the contract.</p> <p>Pleadings — Amendments to Conform to Proof. It is not error to allow a trial amendment to conform to the proof by changing a demand on quantum meruit to one for a specific sum, where there was no attempt to show prejudice thereby nor a request for a continuance.</p> <p>Contracts — Furnishing Information to Locate Claims — Evidence — Sufficiency. There is sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict finding liability upon a contract to pay for information whereby the defendants secured timber and homestead locations, where it appears that they secured their first information from the plaintiffs, made locations in pursuance thereof, and agreed to pay a specified sum per claim therefor; and the contract was not affected by plaintiffs’