Dobrentai v. Piehl

Citations

• 92 Wash. 433
• 159 P. 371
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 765

Syllabus

<p>Trial — Findings—Construction. A finding that an “exclusive concession” to sell lunches, refreshments, etc., on certain premises of the grantor, was violated by a tenant of the grantor occupying an adjoining storeroom, “with the consent of the grantor,” is sufficient to show an active, rather than a passive consent, rendering the grantor liable in damages; under the rule that equivocal findings, in the absence of the evidence, will be construed to support the judgment, if susceptible of such construction.</p> <p>Contracts — For Concessions — Breach—Liability. The owner of premises granting an “exclusive concession” to sell lunches, refreshments, etc., upon the premises, is bound to protect his grantee against all wrongdoers, including tenants claiming under him.</p> <p>Actions — Joinder—Judgment—Misjoinder—Waiver. In an action against the grantor of an exclusive concession, for damages for breach of the contract, committed by the grantor’s tenants “with the consent” of the grantor, it is not error to enter a separate judgment against the grantor for breach of his contract, and only for nominal damages against the tenants; especially where no question of misjoinder of causes of action was suggested below.</p>