Case Name: James A. Broadbent, Appellant, v. Mukilteo Lumber Company, Respondent
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1905-12-16
Citations: 41 Wash. 698
Docket Number: No. 5878
Parties: James A. Broadbent, Appellant, v. Mukilteo Lumber Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 698–698

Head Matter:
[No. 5878.
Decided December 16, 1905.]
James A. Broadbent, Appellant, v. Mukilteo Lumber Company, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Snohomish county, Denney, J., entered December 13, 1904, in favor of the defendant, dismissing on the merits an action for services as an architect, upon sustaining a challenge to the evidence.
Affirmed.
Rossman & Johnson, for appellant.
Brownell <£- Coleman and Cooley S Horan, for respondent.
Reported in 82 Pac. 1135.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an action to recover the value of services alleged to have been rendered by appellant as an architect in the building of a sawmill. At the conclusion of the testimony, the court sustained a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and the cause was dismissed.
The record is voluminous, and its analysis in this opinion would be profitless. But, conceding the legal propositions urged by appellant in his favor, from an investigation of the testimony submitted by him on both direct and cross-examination, we are convinced that there was a failure of proof to sustain his claim.
The judgment will therefore be affirmed.