Watter v. Glendenning
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Oneida County. This action was brought to recover the amount of two promissory notes given by the defendants to the plaintiffs, one for $287.50, and the other for $580.72, less the sum of $50 paid June 4, 1892, and $400 paid June 22, 1892. The answer was that these notes were given as part payment for certain planing-mill machinery purchased by defendants of the plaintiffs, May 15,1891, of the value of about $1,400, and for which, at the…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Oneida County. This action was brought to recover the amount of two promissory notes given by the defendants to the plaintiffs, one for $287.50, and the other for $580.72, less the sum of $50 paid June 4, 1892, and $400 paid June 22, 1892. The answer was that these notes were given as part payment for certain planing-mill machinery purchased by defendants of the plaintiffs, May 15,1891, of the value of about $1,400, and for which, at the time, the defendants made a cash payment and gave the notes in suit, with others, for the balance of the purchase price;…
1Opinion of the CourtPinney, J.
The finding of a jury will not be disturbed if there is any competent evidence to support it and it does not appear that the jury acted from prejudice or passion. It is not the duty of the jury to count the witnesses, but to weigh the evidence. Wausau Boom Co. v. Plumer, 49 Wis. 118. It is not clear that there was any decided preponderance of evidence either way upon the material question, namely, whether there was an agreement by which the plaintiffs took the machinery in question in satisfaction of their debt. We think there was sufficient evidence, if believed by the jury, to support their…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wausau Boom Co. v. PlumerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880