87 Wash. 198 | Wash. | 1915
This action was brought to recover upon three causes of action: first, for an alleged balance of $1,100 for services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant corporation from January 1, 1912, until January 14, 1913, at an agreed salary of $150 per month; second, for the alleged use of a team of horses at $50 per month for the same period; and third, for supplies furnished to the defendant of the alleged value of $100.07. The answer denied that there was any balance due the plaintiff, and alleged a counterclaim of $2,500 for defective work done by the plaintiff for the defendant. The case was tried to the court without a jury. Findings were made in favor of the plaintiff for $878.75 on the first cause of action, $451.29 upon the second cause of
The defendant has appealed, making two contentions: First, that the evidence was insufficient to show a contract for $150 per month for the plaintiff and $50 per month for the plaintiff’s team of horses; and second, that the court erred in finding that the counterclaim of the defendant was barred' by the statute of limitations. The main issue tried was whether the defendant agreed to employ the plaintiff for the sum of $150 per month for himself and $50 per month for his team of horses. There was direct and positive testimony that this was the contract. The general manager of the defendant denied that any such contract was entered into. It was, therefore, a question of fact where the evidence was contradictory. After a careful reading of the abstract, we are not convinced that the trial court erroneously found upon this question. This court has repeatedly held that, where the trial court hears the testimony, sees the witnesses, and takes into consideration their credibility and the circumstances surrounding the transaction, we will not reverse the judgment unless we are satisfied that the trial court was wrong in its findings upon such questions. Coates v. Teabo, 44 Wash. 271, 87 Pac. 355; Sorrill v. McGougan, 44 Wash. 558, 87 Pac. 825; Carr v. Cohn, 44 Wash. 586, 87 Pac. 926.
Upon the second point, it is strenuously argued by the appellant that the court erred in finding that the counterclaim of the defendant was barred by the statute of limitations. The record shows that the plaintiff performed some riprap work for the defendant in the years 1909 and 1910, and that his services for this work had been paid for. The contract upon which the plaintiff based this action was entered into in January, 1912. It was an entirely different
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Mokkis, C. J., Chadwick, and Holcomb, JJ., concur.