Rochester v. Seattle, Renton & Southern Railway Co.

Citations

• 75 Wash. 559
• 135 P. 209
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 2247

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — Decisions Appealable — Judgment on Mandate. The general rule is that no appeal lies from a judgment entered by the trial court in accordance with a mandate from the appellate court.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Order Granting New Trial — Questions Considered — Second Appeal. Where a new trial is expressly granted upon one specific ground, after considering and denying all the other grounds of the motion, and the adverse party appeals, the respondent may, to sustain the order, urge all the grounds covered in his motion below; hence he cannot take a second appeal, after reversal of the order and remand for judgment on the verdict.</p> <p>Appeal — Decisions Appealable — Second Appeal — Practice— Change in Practice. Upon overruling the practice of requiring the respondent, on appeal from an order granting a new trial on one express ground, to take a second appeal to review error in denying his motion on other grounds, such second appeal will not be denied to a party who had followed the practice as established by the supreme court.</p> <p>Death — Wrongful Death — Damages— Elements —■ Expectation of Inheritance — Instructions. In an action for the wrongful death of a father, brought on behalf of a minor son, an instruction that the jury may consider not only the father’s habits and mental qualifications and “capacity for accumulating property,” but any pecuniary loss by reason of loss of care, society, training, etc., is not objectionable as submitting as an element of damage the son’s expectation of inheritance; since, in connection with the context, the inapt clause quoted goes no further than to submit the pecuniary value of the father’s life to the boy.</p> <p>Death- — Wrongful Death — Excessive Damages. A verdict for $17,500 for the death of a father, in an action on behalf of a minor son, held excessive unless reduced to $12,000.</p>