Lee Hong v. Schoenwald

Citations

• 86 Wash. 326
• 150 P. 436
• 1915 Wash. LEXIS 1002

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Performance or Breach — Evidence — Admissibility. Upon an issue as to whether a shortage in a salmon pack was due to the fault of the plaintiff and his crew of packers, or to the failure of the defendant’s machinery and equipment which he had agreed with plaintiff to furnish and' keep in repair, evidence as to the defective and worn-out condition of the machinery at the beginning of the season and describing its then condition, and that it frequently broke down and failed to work properly, is admissible as tending to show defendant’s breach of contract.</p> <p>Same — Performance or Breach — Admissions Against Interest— Statement of Agent. In such á case, evidence of the statement made by defendant’s cannery foreman in charge of the plant, upon plaintiff’s complaint as to the defective condition of the machinery, that it was left in bad condition the year before, and “no man in the United States could fix it,” is an admission of defendant’s alter ego against interest, and is not inadmissible as a mere expression of opinion.</p> <p>Pleadings — Variance —Materiality — Showing. A variance in the admission of evidence tending to somewhat broaden the scope of the issues is nonprejudicial, where ño continuance was demanded and no showing made that the party was misled to his prejudice, in view of Rem. & Bal. Code, § 299, providing that no variance shall be material unless it actually misleads the party to his prejudice, and providing that the fact shall be shown to the satisfaction of the court, and for amendments to the pleadings on such terms as may be just.</p>