Sexton v. School District No. 34

Citations

• 9 Wash. 5
• 36 P. 1052
• 1894 Wash. LEXIS 246

Syllabus

<p>ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR MATERIALS FURNISHED CONTRACTOR —INSTRUCTIONS — EXCEPTIONS.</p> <p>Under Laws 1898, p.U3, §4, the grounds of objection to an instruction need not be stated in the exception thereto.</p> <p>Where the court, throughout its instructions, gives undue prominence to the testimony of plaintiffs, and makes no reference to the testimony offered by defendant, except in the most general terms, the instructions must, when the testimony is conflicting, be held erroneous on the ground that they do not fairly submit the cause to the jury.</p> <p>In an action by material men against a school district, founded on its failure to take a bond from a contractor employed in the construction of a school building, where there is evidence showing that the lumber sued for was furnished to a firm of which the contractor was a member, and not to the contractor for use in said building, in addition to evidence of a charge upon plaintiffs’ books which showed a sale to the firm instead of to the individual contractor, an instruction “that if plaintiffs satisfy your mind that there was a mistake [in making the charge] and the evidence is not in conflict, you will find that there was a mistake, and that the goods were sold to the contractor,” is misleading, as it makes the whole question as to whom the lumber was sold turn upon the way it was charged upon the books of plaintiffs, and whether it was so charged by mistake,</p>