60 Wn.2d 899, JOHN KIRNER, Respondent, v. W. A. SKEWIS et al., Appellants

[No. 36097. Department One.     Supreme Court     August 9, 1962.]

JOHN KIRNER, Respondent, v. W. A. SKEWIS et al., Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clallam County, No. 14300, Max Church, J., entered March 28, 1961. Affirmed.

Action for breach of contract. Defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Johnston & Raley, for appellants.

Forest & Forest, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. -

This appeal is from a judgment in favor of the respondent (plaintiff) for the breach of a subcontract for the construction of a pipeline, and from the dismissal of appellants' (defendants') crosscomplaint for the price of materials furnished respondent.

Upon adequate proof, the court found that the appellants abandoned the contract, and that, in consequence, respondent completed the work at his own expense. The court allowed the appellants the reasonable value of the materials furnished respondent. Only a dispute of fact is presented which cannot be retried here. Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn. (2d) 570, 343 P. (2d) 183.

Affirmed.

60 Wn.2d 899, OLE WOLLAN et al., Respondents, v. ALLAN R. BILLETT, as Administrator, Defendant, HARDWARE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant

[No. 36333. Department One.      Supreme Court      October 4, 1962.]

OLE WOLLAN et al., Respondents, v. ALLAN R. BILLETT, as Administrator,
      Defendant, HARDWARE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 146268, Floyd V. Hicks, J., entered November 13, 1961. Affirmed.

Writ of garnishment. Garnishee appeals from a judgment against it.

Burkey, Marsico & Burkey, for appellant.

Comfort, Dolack & Hansler (Patrick C. Comfort, of counsel), for respondents.

PER CURIAM. -

The Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, a corporation, which insured Anna Belle Tapia, whose administrator appealed Wollan v. Billett, ante p. 677, prosecutes a separate appeal from a judgment on a writ of garnishment based thereon.

The affirmance of the primary judgment renders this appeal moot.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

* Reported in 373 P. (2d) 795.

Reported in 375 P. (2d) 148.