Cash Hardware Co. v. Sweeney

• Decision Date: 05 June 1903
• Citation: 72 P. 826,9 Idaho 148
• Parties: CASH HARDWARE COMPANY v. SWEENEY
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

72 P. 826

9 Idaho 148

CASH HARDWARE COMPANY v. SWEENEY

Supreme Court of Idaho

June 5, 1903

VERDICT OF JURY-CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE.

1. Where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from the District Court of Nez Perce County. Honorable Edgar C. Steele, Judge.

Action to recover on notes and accounts. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Affirmed. Costs of the appeal awarded to respondent.

George W. Tannahill, for Appellant, cites no authorities upon the point decided by the court.

McFarland & McFarland, for Respondent, cite no authorities upon the point upon which the court decided the case.

SULLIVAN C. J. Stockslager and Ailshie, JJ., concur.

OPINION

The facts are stated in the opinion.

SULLIVAN C. J.--

This action involves the question of novation of notes and accounts.

It appears that the partnership of Hensel & Story had purchased certain machinery and hardware from the respondent, and that respondent had guaranteed the payment of a certain promissory note of $ 200, the proceeds of which had been used by said partnership in the payment of freight charges on said machinery, and that appellant thereafter purchased said machinery and hardware from said partnership. And it is alleged in the complaint that it was mutually agreed between said Hensel & Story and appellant and respondent that appellant should pay said Hensel & Story's indebtedness to appellant as a part of the consideration of said sale, and that respondent thereupon released said Hensel & Story and accepted the appellant as its debtor for the sum due it from Hensel & Story. The answer put in issue the allegations of the complaint.

The cause was tried by the court with a jury and verdict and judgment were rendered and entered in favor of the respondent. This appeal is from the judgment and the order denying a new trial.

The brief of appellant does not comply with the provisions of paragraph 1 of rule 6 of the rules of this court, in that it fails to contain a distinct enumeration of the several errors relied upon. In it, however, are discussed several errors and we shall only consider those discussed in the brief.

The insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict is assigned as error, but the statement on motion for a new trial fails to specify or designate the particulars wherein the evidence is insufficient to justify...