Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

R.H. HAMM et al., Respondents, v. THE CITY OF SEATTLE, Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

In view of our holding in Wong Kee Jun v. Seattle, ante p. 479, 255 P. 645, where we have adopted a rule different from that enunciated in Jorguson v. Seattle, 80 Wn. 126, 141 P. 334, the departmental decision herein reported in ( Hamm v. Seattle) 140 Wn. 427, 249 P. 778, is modified by striking therefrom the following language:

"The objection is sound. Kincaid v. Seattle, 74 Wn. 617, 134 P. 504, 135 P. 820; Jorguson v. Seattle, 80 Wn. 126, 141 P. 334.

"But we do not think reversal should necessarily follow. A statement of law inapplicable under the facts and pleadings, but which could in no wise prejudice or mislead the jury, cannot be considered reversible error."

In all other respects the opinion is affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HAMM v. CITY OF SEATTLE
(Apr 21, 1927)