Sanders v. Pinney

Citations

• 103 Wash. 162
• 174 P. 471
• 1918 Wash. LEXIS 1077

Syllabus

<p>Loss and Logging — Timber Contract — Covenants to Put in Possession — Breach. Upon a sale of timber purchased from and standing on the land of another, with covenant that the vendee may go on the land to cut and remove the timber without let or hinderance, the vendor is bound to put the vendee in possession and is liable for damages for failure to do so>, upon demand, when the owner of the land refused to allow the vendee to enter.</p> <p>Evidence — Expert Opinion — Qualifications of Witness. An expert as to the cost of logging and market value of logs is not disqualified because he had never been on the land, where he answered properly framed hypothetical questions based upon the proof.</p> <p>Appeal — Review-—Harmless Error. Error cannot be predicated upon the exclusion of evidence where the witness was later permitted to testify.</p> <p>Logs and Logging — Contract—Action for Breach — Instructions. Under an entire contract for the sale of timber upon two tracts of land, involving large expense in the construction of skid roads to remove any timber from either tract, it is prope'r to instruct that the whole contract is violated by failure to put the vendee in possession of a substantial part.</p> <p>Same — Contract—Breach—Measure of Damages. The measure of damages through failure to put a vendee in possession of land to cut and remove the timber purchased is the difference between the reasonable value of the merchantable timber sold and the cost of the cutting and placing it on the market, plus the amount agreed to be paid.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error. Error cannot be predicated upon giving an instruction where appellant had requested a similar one.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Verdict—Excessiveness. A verdict for damages for breach of a contract for the sale of standing timber is not excessive, where there was evidence that the vendee’s net profits were in excess of the verdict rendered.</p>