Ekstrand v. Barth

Citations

• 41 Wash. 321
• 83 P. 305
• 1906 Wash. LEXIS 961

Syllabus

<p>Pleadings — Breach of Building Contract — Complaint — Certainty. It is not error to refuse to order a complaint for breach of a building contract to be made more definite and certain where it contained a copy of the specifications in full and alleged the substance of the contract.</p> <p>Damages — Breach of Building Contract — Sale of Premises Before Suit. Damages sustained by the owner of premises by reason of the contractors’ breach of a building contract are personal to the owner and do not abate upon a sale of the premises before suit.</p> <p>Contracts — For Building House — Damages for Defects — Payment and Acceptance — Estoppel—No Knowledge of Defects. The owner of premises is not estopped to recover damages for the defective construction of a building by the acceptance of the work and a settlement with the contractors and by the fact that she was present during the progress of the work, where it appears that she was inexperienced and had no knowledge of the defect until after payment had been made, and relied upon the contractors as friends to properly build the house.</p> <p>Appeal — Trial De Novo — Evidence—Harmless Error. The admission of improper evidence in a case tried before the court without a jury is harmless.</p> <p>Contracts — Evidence—Building Inspector’s Approval of Location of Building Encroaching Upon Street — Competency. In an action for damages against contractors for improperly building and locating a house partly in the street, evidence that the city building inspector approved the building, is incompetent where it is admitted that the building encroached upon the street contrary to the terms of the defendants’ contract to properly locate it.</p>