Bafus v. Peeper

• Decision Date: 11 December 1920
• Parties: GEORGE L. BAFUS, Appellant, v. JOSIAH PEEPER, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

194 P. 96

33 Idaho 324

GEORGE L. BAFUS, Appellant, v. JOSIAH PEEPER, Respondent

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 11, 1920

APPEAL AND ERROR-CONFLICT IN EVIDENCE.

An appellate court will not disturb the verdict of a jury or the judgment of a trial court because of conflict in the evidence when there is sufficient proof, if uncontradicted, to sustain it.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, for Kootenai County. Hon. R. N. Dunn, Judge.

Action for an accounting and for half of the profits on purchase and sale of an interest in a mine. Judgment for defendant. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Edward H. Berg and Robertson & Miller, for Appellant, cite no authorities on point decided.

Potts &amp Wernette, for Respondent.

Findings of fact by the court and judgment thereon, based on evidence substantially conflicting, will not be disturbed on appeal. (Spaulding v. Coeur d'Alene Ry. etc. Co., 5 Idaho 528, 51 P. 408; Heckman v. Espey, 12 Idaho 755, 88 P. 80; Miller v. Donovan, 13 Idaho 735, 13 Ann. Cas. 259 92 P. 992; City of Pocatello v. Bass, 15 Idaho 1, 96 P. 120; Hutchinson v. Watson Slough Ditch Co., 16 Idaho 484, 133 Am. St. 125, 101 P. 1059; Tomsche v. Hummel, 18 Idaho 23, 108 P. 343; Flynn Group Mining Co. v. Murphy, 18 Idaho 266, 138 Am. St. 201, 109 P. 851; Salisbury v. Spofford, 22 Idaho 393, 126 P. 400; Miller v. Blunck, 24 Idaho 234, 133 P. 383.)

Where there is evidence to support the finding of the court and the judgment, the judgment will not be reversed. (Brown v. Grubb, 23 Idaho 537, 130 P. 1073; Brinton v. Steele, 23 Idaho 615, 131 P. 662; Morris-Roberts Co. v. Mariner, 24 Idaho 788, 135 P. 1166.)

MORGAN, C. J. Rice and Budge, JJ., concur.

OPINION

MORGAN, C. J.

This action was commenced for an accounting and to recover half of the net profits on the purchase and sale of an interest in a mine which was bought and sold by respondent at a time when, appellant contends, there existed an agreement for an equal division between them of any profits which might arise from the deal.

According to the theory of appellant the consideration for the agreement was $ 10 which, evidence introduced on his behalf tends to show, he advanced to respondent with which to pay the expenses of the latter while engaged in the enterprise, the transaction being sometimes referred to as a "grubstake."

There is a direct conflict in the evidence. Respondent denied any agreement ever existed between the parties to share the profits, and introduced evidence tending to show the $ 10 in question was loaned to him by appellant's wife and was by him...