Russell v. B. Schade Brewing Co.

Citations

• 49 Wash. 362
• 95 P. 327
• 1908 Wash. LEXIS 585

Syllabus

<p>Witnesses — Cross-Examination. It is proper to exclude cross-examination of a party as to what he would have done under supposed circumstances which did not exist.</p> <p>Trial — Decision — Review — Findings. In view of Bal. Code, § 5029, requiring the court on trial of issues of fact to give its decision in writing, the oral opinion of the court, delivered at the conclusion of the testimony, that judgment should go for the defendant, does not preclude the court from afterward deciding to enter written findings and a judgment in favor of the plaintiff; as until the decision is made in writing it is under the control of the court.</p> <p>Evidence — Admissions—Entry in Account Book. In an action for services as a physician, rendered to defendant’s employee under a specific contract of employment made by the defendant, an entry in the physician’s account books against the employee “care of the defendant” is not a conclusive admission that the services were originally rendered to the employee only, the physician testifying that the entry was simply for the purpose of identifying the account.</p> <p>Corporations — Representations— Officers — Authority —• Contracts — Evidence—Sufficiency. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the president of a brewing company assumed to have general management and was so held out by the corporation, thereby authorizing him to employ a physician to attend an injured employee, where it appears that he was present at the time of the accident, took charge and gave directions as to securing a physician, ambulance, and nurse, as one apparently in charge, and afterwards talked as one having general powers, and had notice that the services were being rendered in reliance upon his authority to make the employment.</p>