44 Wn.2d 308, ALFRED T. CUDMORE, Respondent, v. ENOCH R. TJOMSLAND et al., Appellants
[No. 32589. Department Two. Supreme Court February 25, 1954.]
ALFRED T. CUDMORE, Respondent, v. ENOCH R. TJOMSLAND
et al., Appellants.1
[1] DAMAGES - EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH - EXPENSES INCURRED - REASONABLE VALUE OF SERVICES. In an action by a buyer of cattle for breach of warranty by the vendor that the cattle were free of disease, a veterinarian's bill for $123 which was an item of special damage will not be allowed, where there was no testimony tending to show that $123 was a reasonable charge for the veterinarian's services; since the reasonable value of services rendered must be established.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Whatcom county, No. 33277, Kale, J., entered May 11, 1953, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for breach of warranty, tried to the court. Affirmed, as modified.
Pemberton & Orloff, for appellant.
Leo C. Goodman, for respondent.
PER CURIAM. -
This appeal presents primarily questions of fact, and there is little dispute as to the applicable law.
Our examination of the record satisfies us that there is evidence to sustain the basic finding of the trial court that there was a warranty by the vendor that a bull and three
1 Reported in 266 P. (2d) 1058.
[1] See 15 Am. Jur. 616.
Feb. 1954] STATE v. ROFF. 309
heifers were free of disease, and that the warranty was breached because the animals were diseased when sold.
[1] We find no merit in any assignment of error except appellants' contention that one item of special damage, a veterinarian's bill for $123, was not established by competent evidence. This contention must be sustained because respondent presented no testimony whatever tending to show that $123 was a reasonable charge for the services rendered by the veterinarian. Whatever may be the rule elsewhere, it is now the established law in this jurisdiction that the reasonable value of services rendered must be established. Carr v. Martin, 35 Wn. (2d) 753, 761, 215 P. (2d)411 (1950). We direct attention to all of law point No. 4 in that opinion, instead of quoting it here.
The judgment will be reduced by $123, and affirmed as reduced.