HERRETT TRUCK’G CO. v. HAM. FRT. CO., 57 Wn.2d 910 (1961)

358 P.2d 554

HERRETT TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. J.D. HAMILTON FRUIT COMPANY, Respondent.[1]

No. 35317.The Supreme Court of Washington. Department Two.
January 19, 1961.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Chelan County, No. 20281, Lawrence Leahy, J., entered August 5, 1959, upon sustaining a challenge to the evidence and dismissing an action for a money judgment. Affirmed.

Boose Garrison and Roger K. Garrison, for appellant.

Whitmore Whitmore and David J. Whitmore, for respondent.

FINLEY, C.J.

In this lawsuit the appellant trucking company alleges that it (1) performed services for the respondent, J.D. Hamilton Fruit Company, and (2) seeks to obtain a money judgment against respondent for the services allegedly performed.

The evidence clearly establishes that certain trucking services were in fact performed by appellant. However, the crucial question is whether the appellant performed the trucking services for respondent or for other business entities (with somewhat similar trade names) operating in the Columbia Basin area.

The trial court determined that there was no evidence or reasonable inference therefrom to support appellant’s allegation of a carrier-shipper relationship, and liability in this connection, on the part of respondent. Judgment was entered dismissing appellant’s action with prejudice.

We find no reason to disturb the judgment of the trial court. It is hereby ordered that the judgment be affirmed, with costs to respondent.

WEAVER, HILL, ROSELLINI, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

REPORTER’S NOTE
By order of the Supreme Court dated December 13, 1957, the reporter was directed not to publish any opinion of the Supreme Court in bound volumes of the Washington Reports while a petition for rehearing is pending, and until after the final determination if a hearing is granted.

Pursuant to the above order, the opinion in the following case, which was published in Vol. 157 of the Washington Decisions, has been withheld from publication in the current volume:

No. 35407 Thompson v. Smith

Page 1