Summary
In Hamm v. Seattle, 143 Wn. 700, 255 P. 655, this court referred to the Wong Kee Jun case, supra, as one "where we have adopted a rule different from that enunciated in Jorguson v. Seattle."
Summary of this case from Boitano v. Snohomish CountyOpinion
No. 19901. En Banc.
April 21, 1927.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Jones, J., entered October 13, 1925, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action in tort. Affirmed.
Thomas J.L. Kennedy and Arthur Schramm, for appellant.
Frank S. Griffith and Jay C. Allen, for respondent.
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.