Great Western Motors, Inc. v. Hibbard

Citations

• 112 Wash. 541
• 192 P. 958
• 1920 Wash. LEXIS 773

Syllabus

<p>Evidence (60)—Similar Transactions—Fraud—General Scheme. Upon an issue as to fraud in the sale of an automobile to defendant by plaintiff by misrepresenting tbe year of the car, evidence that plaintiff had sold the same car to witness by making similar false representations is inadmissible to prove plaintiff’s fraudulent intent; inasmuch as proof of fraudulent intent was not material or essential to hold plaintiff liable for positive misrepresentations of matters of fact.</p> <p>Same (211)—Opinion Evidence—Competency oe Experts—Value. A witness who had been in the business of selling and buying automobiles for twenty-two years, and was familiar with Paige cars of 1917 and 1918, is competent to testify as an expert as to their value.</p> <p>Damages (114)—Assessment—Evidence—Expenses Incurred— Reasonable Value. Error cannot be predicated upon the allowance of $200 for repairs to an automobile because the only paid bill in evidence was for but $12.15, where the respondent testified without objection to other payments made by him, and there was no specific objection that the reasonable value of the repairs was not shown.</p>