Whetmore v. Rupe

The Court.

1. The court below found there was not an immediate delivery, and actual and continued change of possession to and in plaintiff, of the goods demanded in this action, and this is not contradicted by the other findings.

2. Appellant contends the judgment should be reversed because neither it nor any finding determines the value of each article sued for separately. In support of this contention appellant cites Wallace v. Hilliard, 7 Wis. 627; Farmers’ Loan v. Commercial Bank, 15 Wis. 425; Whitfield v. Whitfield, 40 Miss. 369; and Hoeser v. Kraeka 29 Tex. 455. The first of these cases…