Case Name: Owen Fitzpatrick, Respondent, v. T. W. Newland, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1914-09-04
Citations: 81 Wash. 401
Docket Number: No. 11968
Parties: Owen Fitzpatrick, Respondent, v. T. W. Newland, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 81
Pages: 401–402

Head Matter:
[No. 11968.
Department Two.
September 4, 1914.]
Owen Fitzpatrick, Respondent, v. T. W. Newland, Appellant.
Appeal — Review-—Verdict. A verdict supported by ample, tbougb conflicting, evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.
Jury — Jury Trial — Discretion oe Court. It is discretionary to submit the cause to a jury after setting it for trial, by consent, as a court case.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Huneke, J., entered November £5, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action on contract.
Affirmed.
Belden fy Losey (Henry R. Newton, of counsel), for appellant.
Geo. W. Belt, for respondent.
Reported in 142 Pac. 867.

Opinion:
Parker, J.
— The plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant the sum of $1,500, as the purchase price of a crop, claimed to have been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. Verdict and judgment being rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant has appealed.
The only question presented, which we regard as calling for serious consideration, is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment. We find in the record ample evidence, if believed by the jury, to support the conclusion reached by it, though there is serious conflict in the evidence. This prevents our interference with the verdict and judgment upon this ground, even if we were inclined to view the weight of the evidence as being in appellant's favor. Pachko v. Wilkeson Coal & Coke Co., 46 Wash. 422, 90 Pac. 436; Warwick v. Hitchings, 50 Wash. 140, 96 Pac. 960; Shepard v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co., 50 Wash. 242, 97 Pac. 57, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 239; Edwards v. Seattle, Renton etc. R. Co., 62 Wash. 77, 113 Pac. 563.
Some contention is made that the trial court erred in trying the cause with a jury after it had been set for trial, we assume by consent, as a court case. This was, in any event, a course which the trial court had discretion to pursue. Knapp v. Order of Pendo, 36 Wash. 601, 79 Pac. 209; Sholin v. Skamania Boom Co., 56 Wash. 303, 105 Pac. 632, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1053.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cnow, C. J., Fui/lebton, Morris, and Mount, JJ., concur.