Legal Opinion
Wolfeld v. Hanika
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided January 8, 1932No. 14,190PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLockyear, J.
— This action was brought by the appellee against the appellants for damages for fraud in the sale of a fur coat by the appellants to the appellee.
There was a trial before the court without a jury, with a finding and judgment in favor of the appellee for $325, the full purchase price of the coat.
The appellant filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law.
The appellee, Daisy Hanika, testified that in January, 1929, she called at the place of business of appellants and selected a coat, ordered certain…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Thompson v. PeckIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Hauss v. SurranCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- Baldwin v. MarshIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
- John H. Hibben Dry Goods Co. v. HicksIndiana Court of Appeals · 1901
3Cited by3 opinions
- Royal Business Machines, Inc. v. Lorraine Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1980
- Park 100 Investors, Inc. v. KartesIndiana Court of Appeals · 1995
- Royal Business MacHines Inc. v. Lorraine Corp. And Michael L. Booher, Lorraine Corp. And Michael L. Booher v. Litton Business Systems, Inc. And Royal Business MacHines Inc., DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1980