W. W. Kimball Co. v. Cockrell

Citations

• 23 Wash. 529
• 63 P. 228
• 1900 Wash. LEXIS 384

Syllabus

<p>CONTRACT OP GUARANTY — EXCLUSION OP EVIDENCE — HARMLESS ERROR.</p> <p>In an action upon a contract of guaranty of payment given A.by defendant to plaintiff, upon the sale of a piano to a third person, the rejection of a general contract showing that defendant had agreed to guaranty the payment of the price of all pianos shipped by plaintiff to him for sale is harmless error, when the particular contract of guaranty in suit has been admitted in evidence.</p> <p>SAME — CONSIDERATION—QUESTION FOB JURY.</p> <p>The action of the court in taking a case from the jury on the ground that no consideration had been proven for the guaranty of payment given by defendant upon a sale of a piano for plaintiff, was error, when the evidence showed that the piano had been “invoiced” to defendant and that plaintiff had credited defendant’s unpaid account upon the receipt of the guaranty in suit.</p> <p>SAME-BURDEN OF PROOF.</p> <p>In an action upon an absolute guaranty of payment of a contract for the sale of a piano, which had been assigned by defendant to plaintiff, the action of the court was erroneous in taking the case from the jury for failure of plaintiff to show affirmatively what disposition had been made of certain notes referred to in the contract, when there was neither pleading nor proof that such notes had ever been in plaintiff’s possession.</p>