Heitmiller v. Prall

Citations

• 108 Wash. 382
• 184 P. 334

Syllabus

<p>New Trial (23)-—Grounds—Conflicting Evidence. Error cannot be predicated upon the refusal to grant a new trial for insufficiency of conflicting evidence which made a case for the jury.</p> <p>Tbial (89)—Inconsistent or Contradictory Instructions. In an action by a tenant for loss of crops through the landlord’s breach of covenants to install a pump, in which defendant put in issue the plaintiff’s allegation as to due care in attending an orchard, and set up a counterclaim for loss of defendant’s share of the crop, instructions withdrawing the counterclaim on defendant’s failure to show the amount of the damage are not misleading or inconsistent with instructions requiring the plaintiff to show that he substantially performed the contract.</p> <p>Appeal (433)—Harmless Error—Favorable to Appellant. In an action to recover substantial damages, error in instructing that nominal damages can be recovered if there was a breach of the contract and no substantial damages proven, is error favorable to the plaintiff of which he cannot complain.</p> <p>Pleading (112, 113)—Amendment—Change in Cause oe Actions. In a tenant’s action for damages for breach, of the landlord’s contract to install a pump, it is not error, at the conclusion of the evidence, to refuse an amendment of the complaint to show fraud and false representations inducing plaintiff to enter into the lease, as it would change the form of action and require a retrial.</p>