Court Opinion

ID: 9601714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:49:20.152212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:11.062040
License: Public Domain

Roe, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I agree with the majority except I would not reverse the trial court in its denial of prejudgment interest. I do not think the salvage is liquidated because it is not established by mere computation or known standards. Ryan v. Plath, 20 Wn.2d 663, 148 P.2d 946 (1944), is in point. In Ryan the action involved the accounting of the proceeds of an apple crop. No prejudgment interest was allowed because the account was controverted as in the instant case, and the claim was not liquidated until proof was taken and the account approved by the trial court. There was reliance on opinion and discretion.
Mall Tool Co. v. Far West Equip. Co., 45 Wn.2d 158, 273 P.2d 652 (1954), discussed Ryan v. Plath, supra, and stated the balance due defendants was on approval by the court of the manner of disposal of the apple crop. It also included the allowance of reasonable compensation for the administrator's services.
*548Here, the method of salvage was disputed and the amount realized from the sale of the potatoes was challenged. It depended on many factors, and whether it was the correct method of salvage rested upon the approval by the court.
Hence, I would affirm the trial court on all grounds.
Reconsideration denied July 11, 1979.