Court Opinion

ID: 9564835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:08:43.013957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:42.225606
License: Public Domain

Schwellenbach, J.
(dissenting) — Article IV, § 4, of the state constitution provides: “The supreme court shall have . . . appellate jurisdiction in all actions and proceedings, . . .” It is our duty to review the claimed errors of the trial court, whether of law or of fact. We have no right to abdicate that responsibility and make the trial judge su*686preme as to questions of fact. To do so, would not be fair to litigants. It would not be in accord with the purpose of appellate review. Of course, we should not place ourselves on the trial bench. We should not substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge. However, if the record clearly preponderates against the findings of the trial judge, it is our duty, as an appellate court, to reverse. I believe that that is the situation here.
Now what are the facts? We have this situation: Curing salt was ordered according to certain specifications. It was manufactured and ground according to those specifications. It was shipped via the Panama Canal. When it arrived in Seattle, it was solidly caked. If it became caked during and as a result of the trip, the seller would not be liable. If it became caked as a result of faulty manufacture, the seller would be liable.
The court entered Finding of Fact No. VI:
“That this caking was due entirely to the presence of excessive moisture in the meat-curing salt, that this excessive moisture was in the salt when it was packaged by plaintiff, that no hazard of the sea while the salt was in transit caused this caking, and that the salt became caked and hardened as a result of the plaintiff improperly putting the damp salt in the containers at the plaintiff’s place of business.” .
Thomas H. Williams, a chemist, testified for respondent. His examination was made two and a half years after the salt was delivered. He explored half way down the barrel to get his samples, which he took at the center and at the edge. By comparison of the moisture content of other salts with that of the Croton salt, he concluded that the latter is not a hygroscopic salt. He defined “hygroscopic” as the tendency of salt to draw moisture out of the air. He testified that the uniformity of moisture from the edge to the center indicated that the drum was not accidentally wetted at any time because under that circumstance, the edge would have been more moist than the center; that the uniformity of the moisture content indicated that the salts had been that way all the time, and he concluded that they were moist *687when they were ground. He pulverized the salt loosely, not destroying the grain size, and put it in a container. Within twenty-four hours it had caked again. He concluded therefrom that the moisture content was responsible for the caking.
H. W. Dippel, a chemist in New York, testified for the appellant by deposition. He testified that in a powder grind mix of three per cent sodium nitrite, twelve per cent sodium nitrate, and eighty-five per cent sodium chloride, there is a great tendency to harden, cake, or solidify; that all three of these chemicals are hygroscopic; that it is a common occurrence for such chemicals to harden when mixed in these proportions; that in transportation by ship through a very moist tropical country, such as Panama, there would be every opportunity for the salt to harden; that the fact that the salt caked solidly, from one edge of the drum to the other, would not indicate anything particularly; that the moisture could have been acquired one day and could have dried out the next day. He testified that the reason a portion of the particular mix remained in Metuchen, New Jersey, where it was originally mixed, remained free flowing, was because it did not undergo the same temperature and atmospheric conditions which the actual shipment did.
It would be rather presumptuous for us to attempt to distinguish the testimony of these two expert chemists, of a technical nature, and determine therefrom whether or not the salt contained excessive moisture at the time it was packaged.
However, we do have the additional testimony of Frank L. Morgan, the plant manager for Davies Nitrate Company, which prepared the order for Croton. He testified by deposition that the Birkenwald order was prepared on October 19, October 24, and October 30, 1951, and was picked up by carrier November 16th; that he examined the drums a day or two before they were shipped and that the material was perfectly usable — free flowing. He testified that they still have some 216 pounds on hand that was made for this particular order and that it is still very far from being hard; that it is quite soft.
*688Viewing all of the evidence, I am of the opinion that the defendant failed to sustain the burden of proving that the excessive moisture was in the salt when it was packaged by plaintiff, and that the evidence clearly preponderates against the findings of the trial court.
The judgment should be reversed and remanded with direction to grant judgment for the plaintiff.
Donworth and Ott, JJ., concur with Schwellenbach, J.
November 26, 1957. Petition for rehearing denied.