Case Name: R. H. Hamm et al., Respondents, v. The City of Seattle, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1927-04-21
Citations: 143 Wash. 700
Docket Number: No. 19901
Parties: R. H. Hamm et al., Respondents, v. The City of Seattle, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 143
Pages: 700–700

Head Matter:
[No. 19901.
Bn Banc.
April 21, 1927.]
R. H. Hamm et al., Respondents, v. The City of Seattle, Appellant.
Thomas J. L. Kennedy and Arthur Schramm, for appellant.
Frank S. Griffith and Jay O. Allen, for respondent.
Reported in 255 Pac. 655.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In view of our holding in Wong Kee Jun v. Seattle, ante p. 479, 255 Pac. 645, where we have adopted a rule different from' that enunciated in Jorguson v. Seattle, 80 Wash. 126, 141 Pac. 334, the departmental decision herein reported in ( Hamm v. Seattle) 140 Wash. 427, 249 Pac. 778, is modified by striking therefrom the following language:
"The objection is sound. Kincaid v. Seattle, 74 Wash. 617, 134 Pac. 504, 135 Pac. 820; Jorguson v. Seattle, 80 Wash. 126, 141 Pac. 334.
"But we do not think reversal should necessarily follow. A statement of law inapplicable under the facts and pleadings, but which could in no wise prejudice or mislead the jury, cannot be considered reversible error."
In all other respécts the opinion is affirmed.