[No. 35941. Department One. Supreme Court July 19, 1962.]
JOYCE BILLS et al., Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Respondent.«*»
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 526083, Henry W. Cramer, J., entered December 2, 1960. Affirmed.
Action on an insurance policy. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant.
Koenigsberg & Brown, by Leo M. Koenigsberg, for appellants.
A. T. Bateman (of Brethorst, Fowler, Bateman, Reed & McClure), for respondent.
PER CURIAM. -
Appellants sued the respondent on a policy of voluntary compensation insurance to recover a thirty per cent permanent partial disability. While there are six assignments of error, one finding of fact disposes of the entire controversy.
The court found that the plaintiff (appellant) sustained no permanent partial disability as a result of the accident in question although there was evidence to the contrary. A physician of standing who examined Mrs. Bills testified that she did not have a permanent partial disability as a result of the accident. The finding is supported by substantial evidence.
Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn. (2d) 570, 343 P. (2d) 183, and subsequent cases, settle the law that we will not, on appeal, retry disputed questions of fact.
Affirmed.
* Reported in 373 P. (2d) 128.
[No. 36097. Department One. Supreme Court August 9, 1962.]
JOHN KIRNER, Respondent, v. W. A. SKEWIS et al., Appellants.«*»
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clallam County, No. 14300, Max Church, J., entered March 28, 1961. Affirmed.
Action for breach of contract. Defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Johnston & Raley, for appellants.
Forest & Forest, for respondent.
PER CURIAM. -
This appeal is from a judgment in favor of the respondent (plaintiff) for the breach of a subcontract for the construction of a pipeline, and from the dismissal of appellants' (defendants') crosscomplaint for the price of materials furnished respondent.
Upon adequate proof, the court found that the appellants abandoned the contract, and that, in consequence, respondent completed the work at his own expense. The court allowed the appellants the reasonable value of the materials furnished respondent. Only a dispute of fact is presented which cannot be retried here. Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn. (2d) 570, 343 P. (2d) 183.
Affirmed.