C. Aultman & Co. v. Martin
| Decision Date | 04 October 1893 |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
| Parties | C. AULTMAN & CO. v. MARTIN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Where, upon a trial, it appears that the rights of the parties depend upon a contract between them in evidence, it is the duty of the court to construe such contract according to its legal effect; and the refusal to give an instruction correctly construing such contract, and pertinent to the issues, is erroneous.
Commissioners' decision. Error to district court, Fillmore county; W. H. Morris, Judge.
Action in assumpsit by Elisha L. Martin against C. Aultman & Co. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant brings error. Reversed.Sawyer & Snell, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. H. Sloan and Maule & McDonald, for defendant in error.
Elisha L. Martin sued C. Aultman & Co., alleging an indebtedness from Aultman & Co. to Martin growing out of certain transactions connected with the sale of a threshing machine by Martin as the agent of Aultman & Co. The defendant filed practically a general denial, followed by a plea of the statute of limitations as to certain items claimed by plaintiff, and also a counterclaim based upon certain matters growingout of the same general transaction. The reply contained a denial of the affirmative matter, and also matter in confession and avoidance. There was a trial to a jury, and a verdict for $211 in favor of Martin. Upon a motion for a new trial a remittitur for $11 was required as a condition of sustaining the verdict, the case having been begun before a justice of the peace, and the remittitur being for the purpose of reducing the judgment to an amount within the jurisdiction of the justice. It appeared from the evidence that Martin acted as agent for Aultman & Co. in the sale of machines under written annual contracts, two of which, covering the period of the transactions in question, are in evidence. One of the items claimed by Martin was $85 for freight paid for bringing the threshing machine to Fairmount. One of the provisions of the contract in force at that time was that the agent agrees “to sell said machine at retail prices that should be furnished by the party of the first part, adding freight and charges,” and further the agent agrees “to receive all machines and extras shipped, pay freight on the same.” The plain object was to insure to Aultman & Co. their retail prices for the machines as listed, without deduction for freight, by requiring the agent to pay freight, and add...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
York Park Building Association v. Barnes
... ... hesitate to grant a new trial." The same principle was ... substantially announced in Aultman v. Martin, 37 ... Neb. 826, 56 N.W. 622. An entire failure to instruct the jury ... in regard to the law of the case is very different from an ... ...
-
York Park Bldg. Ass'n v. Barnes
...counsel or not, this court would not hesitate to grant a new trial.” The same principle was substantially announced in C. Aultman & Co. v. Martin (Neb.) 56 N. W. 622. An entire failure to instruct the jury in regard to the law of the case is very different from an omission to instruct in re......
- C. Aultman & Company v. Martin