[No. 37288. Department One. Supreme Court March 18, 1965.]
OCEAN VIEW LAND, INC., Appellant, v. W. H. WINEBERG et al.,
Respondents.«*»
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pacific County, No. 14355, John J. Langenbach, J., entered May 29, 1963. Affirmed.
Action on an oral agreement. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendants.
Charles B. Welsh and Brodie, Fristoe, & Taylor, for appellant.
Stark & Wieland and Donald Simpson, for respondent Pacific Properties, Inc.
PER CURIAM. -
The issue in this case is: Did the plaintiff prove an oral agreement of partnership or joint venture between the parties to this action?
The trial court found that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of proving by a "preponderance of the evidence" that such an agreement had been concluded. We agree with the trial court in its decision.
The appellant (plaintiff) now vigorously contends that the evidence proving an agreement of partnership was overwhelming. The respondents, on the other hand, urgently insist that the evidence was in sharp conflict.
We have made a thorough and searching examination of the testimony and of all the exhibits introduced in this case. We find that the evidence is conflicting in many vital particulars. Some of it is incomplete and unconvincing. Parts of it might be called upon to support the position of either party. The resulting confusion is such that the appellant and the respondents are now diametrically opposed even as to the purport and significance of written exhibits in apparent conflict with some of the testimony.
This court adheres to the firmly established rule that we will not retry factual disputes upon appeal where the findings are sustained by substantial evidence. Dodd v. Polack, 63 Wn. (2d) 828, 389 P. (2d) 289; Wells & Wade Hardware, Inc. v. Wenatchee, 64 Wn. (2d) 103,
*Reported in 400 P. (2d) 319.
MEMORANDUM CASES 953
390 P. (2d) 701: Morris v. Rosenberg, 64 Wn. (2d) 404, 391 P. (2d) 975; Boise Cascade Corp. v. Pence, 64 Wn. (2d) 798, 394 P. (2d) 359.
We are satisfied that there was substantial evidence in the present case to support the findings of the trial court.
The judgment is affirmed.
[No. 37555. Department One. Supreme Court March 18, 1965.]
HOMER H. HARRIS, Appellant, v. OLE OLSON et al.,
Respondents.«*»
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 19317, James J. Lawless, J., entered May 2, 1963. Affirmed.
Action for personal injuries. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal.
Critchlow & Williams, for appellant.
Loney, Westland, Koontz & Raekes, for respondents.
PER CURIAM. -
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff (appellant), Homer H. Harris, when a heavy crank-shaft-grinding machine which was being loaded slipped and pinned the plaintiff against the door jam of a garage.
At the conclusion of the testimony the trial court, upon motion of the respondents (defendants), took the case from the jury and dismissed the action. The plaintiff appeals.
We have carefully considered the issues raised by the plaintiff's assignments of error. We are satisfied that the court's rulings on the issues of law are in accord with the established law of the state. We are further convinced that there is not room for reasonable minds to differ on the factual issues, and that the trial court's determination thereof, as a matter of law, was correct. The case was properly taken from the jury.
The judgment is affirmed.
May 27, 1965. Petition for rehearing denied.