Haskell v. Carlisle Packing Co.

Citations

• 105 Wash. 368
• 177 P. 780
• 1919 Wash. LEXIS 563

Syllabus

<p>Trial (29)-—Reception of Evidence—Rebuttal. Where the plaintiff’s evidence in chief showed good workmanship in the manufacture of tanks for the defendant, and defendant’s evidence showed they were leaky, it is proper rebuttal for the plaintiffs to show an admission by the defendant’s plumber that he had caused the leakage.</p> <p>Evidence (52, 93)—Statements of Agent—-Res Gestae. Upon an issue as to the cause for the leakage of gasoline tanks manufactured by the plaintiffs for' the defendant, evidence that defendant’s plumber, while engaged in connecting up the tanks, stated that he had broken a lug and obtained materials for stopping the leak is admissible as a declaration by an agent within the scope of his employment, and also as* part of the res gestae.</p> <p>Sales (127, 128)—Action for, Price—Defenses—Set-off—Defects. Where gasoline tanks manufactured for defendant had a substantial value, and are retained by the defendant without giving plaintiffs an opportunity to repair or remove them, he cannot defend an action for the price on the ground of defective workmanship, but must pay the price with the understanding that plaintiffs would be liable for damages for breach of warranty if they were not fit for the use for which they were made.</p>