Smith v. Diamond Ice & Storage Co.

Citations

• 65 Wash. 576
• 118 P. 646
• 1911 Wash. LEXIS 975

Syllabus

<p>Warehousemen — Cold Storage — Negligence—Evidence—Sufficiency. A verdict for damages to meat held by defendant in cold storage is sustained by evidence that it was in good condition when delivered, and became unmarketable by reason of the odor of iodoform and fish acquired while in defendant’s custody.</p> <p>Same — Negligence—Question for Jury. In an action for damages to meat held in cold storage by defendant, the question of defendant’s negligence is for the jury, where there was evidence that one piece of meat had a very pronounced iodoform odor when received which would be communicated to the balance if stored together, and that it was so stored and all became unmarketable by reason of the odor.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Necessity of Cross-Appeal — Bond. Respondent cannot urge error in not adding interest to a verdict for damages, in the absence of any cross-appeal duly perfected by the filing of an appeal bond as required by Rem. & Bal. Code, § 1721.</p>