Howatt v. Clark

Citations

• 112 Wash. 137
• 192 P. 7
• 1920 Wash. LEXIS 738

Syllabus

<p>Pleading (59-1)—Answer—Matter Available Under General Denial. In an action to recover the price of automobile tires, proof of an agreement between defendants and plaintiffs agent that the tires were to be left with defendants in storage for use of the trade in that part of the city was not the proving of an affirmative defense necessary to be pleaded as such, the only purpose being to show that the alleged sale contracts were never made.</p> <p>Sales (6)—Requisites and Validity—Parties—Participation and Relation. An implied contract of purchase of automobile tires does not arise from the fact that defendants, under an agreement with plaintiffs agent, allowed him to deliver and leave the tires in storage with them with the privilege of sale and right to commissions on sales made by the agent to their customers as compensation for storage and services rendered, although the tires were billed to them in form indicating intended sales, and some of them were billed out to plaintiff’s customers in form as sales from defendants, where defendants never assumed to deal with the tires as their own.</p> <p>Trial (32)—Reopening Case—Discretion. The denial of an application to reopen the case for further evidence is not an abuse of discretion, where the evidence tendered would not have changed the result.</p>