Case Name: O. E. Nilsen et al., Appellants, v. Ebey Land Company et al., Respondents
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1916-03-15
Citations: 90 Wash. 295
Docket Number: No. 13195
Parties: O. E. Nilsen et al., Appellants, v. Ebey Land Company et al., Respondents.
Judges: Morris, C. J., Holcomb, Main, and Parker, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
[No. 13195.
Department Two.
March 15, 1916.]
O. E. Nilsen et al., Appellants, v. Ebey Land Company et al., Respondents.
Appeal — Review—Record Below — Instructions—Bill op Particulars. Upon a case coming up on a bill of exceptions that includes only the pleadings and the instructions, a bill of particulars cannot amplify the complaint or be considered as proof, to start a presumption against the instructions.
Appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of the superior court for Snohomish county, Alston, J., entered March 9, 1915, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action on contract.
Affirmed.
Vince H. Faben, for appellants.
Cooley <§• Horan and R. Mulvihill, for respondents.
Reported in 155 Pac. 1036.

Opinion:
Bausman, J.
The complaint alleged a sale of "goods, wares, and merchandise" of reasonable and agreed value without stating what they were or on what precise dates they were sold, the only description being in a subsequent bill of particulars which contained many items of various dates. The answer, after denials, alleged, by way of rescission, that defendants had bought from plaintiffs an engine, which, being found worthless, was tendered back.
The case comes to us on a bill of exceptions which includes only the pleadings and the instructions. The substance of the latter shows that the jury was allowed to consider this engine as a separate article, whereas appellants claim that it was sold as part of a pumping plant, and that the rescission attempted was bad because the rest was not tendered too. In support of this, we cannot consider the bill of particulars at all, for we have held that such a bill neither is part of a complaint nor is traversed by an answer. It does not amplify a complaint. Dudley v. Duval, 29 Wash. 528, 70 Pac. 68. We have consequently nothing before us to show whether these articles were sold as one plant and for an entire price. As the bill of particulars is not a pleading, so, also, it is not proof. It is a mere announcement of proposed details, which in this trial may or may not have been offered. In fine) we have neither pleadings nor evidence on which to start a presumption against the instructions.
Judgment affirmed.
Morris, C. J., Holcomb, Main, and Parker, JJ., concur.