Peterson v. Arland
Citations
- 79 Wash. 679
- 141 P. 63
Syllabus
<p>Juey — Jury Trial — Demand—Waiver—Statutes — Construction. The amendment of tbe act of 1903, providing that tlie parties “will” be deemed to have waived a jury trial unless demanded and fee paid, by Rem. & Bal. Code, § 316, to read that they “shall” be deemed to have made such waiver in such event, cannot be construed as intended to make the demand and prepayment of fees mandatory, where the real purpose of the amendment was to insert a provision allowing return of the fee in case of settlement of the suit; hence a request for a jury trial may be granted, although not demanded at the time required by the act, in view of Id., § 318, preserving the power of the court to authorize a jury trial in any case whether demanded or not.</p> <p>Appeal — Harmless Error — Instructions—Requests. It is not reversible error to fail to preface instructions by a statement of the issues, when no request was made therefor and the issue was a simple one.</p> <p>Evidence — Official Records — Weather Bureau. Upon an issue as to the amount of rainfall at a certain place, the records of the nearest Federal weather bureau station are admissible for what they are worth, although the station was a considerable distance away.</p> <p>Navigable Waters — Obstructions—Log Jams — Injury to Lands —Liability—Negligence. One using a floatable stream for the transportation of logs owes a positive duty to riparian owners to use reasonable care in looking after logs placed in the river, to prevent the formation of log jams and to remove jams within a reasonable time, where injury to riparian lands would result therefrom.</p> <p>Appeal — Harmless Error — Instructions. Where an instruction specifying the things which constituted actionable negligence was so definite that the jury could not have been misled, the addition of the words “or otherwise” was not prejudicial.</p> <p>Navigable Waters — Obstructions—Log Jams — Injury to Lands —Reasonable Use — Evidence. The right of floatage implies only reasonabl
Judges: Ellis
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Cass v. DicksWashington Supreme Court· 1896-02-24· cited 60×
- McDaniel v. CummingsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-04-01· cited 44×
- Harvey v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1911-06-26· cited 25×
- Sholin v. Skamania Boom Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1909-12-11· cited 22×
- Knapp v. Order of PendoWashington Supreme Court· 1904-01-18· cited 18×
- Idaho & Western Railway Co. v. CoeyWashington Supreme Court· 1913-04-28· cited 18×
- Keil v. Grays Harbor & Puget Sound Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1912-11-22· cited 16×
- Anderson v. HilkerWashington Supreme Court· 1905-05-01· cited 14×
- Hoffman v. WatkinsWashington Supreme Court· 1914-02-14· cited 11×
- Hart v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court· 1894-05-22· cited 9×
- Watkinson v. McCoyWashington Supreme Court· 1900-12-05· cited 6×
- Lambert v. LaConner Trading & Transportation Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1905-02-20· cited 6×
- Hart v. Cascade Timber Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1905-07-21· cited 6×
- WilliamsSecond Circuit· 1905-06-23· cited 5×
- In re McWilliamsSecond Circuit· 1896-05-27· cited 5×
- Johnson v. Irvine Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1913-09-27· cited 4×
- Fleming v. WilsonWashington Supreme Court· 1905-05-23· cited 3×
- Gilson v. Cascade Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1909-07-26· cited 3×
- The Sir Robert FernieD. Washington· 1899-09-02· cited 3×
- Johnson v. Irvine Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1914-05-07· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.