Juneau v. Stunkle
| Decision Date | 09 February 1889 |
| Citation | 40 Kan. 756,20 P. 473 |
| Parties | H. JUNEAU v. HENRY STUNKLE |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Sumner District Court.
ACTION by Juneau against Stunkle, to recover $ 192.27 alleged to be due on a bill of lumber and building material sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant in his answer pleaded payment, and also a counter-claim for $ 100, alleged to be an overpayment. Trial at the November term, 1885, and verdict for the defendant for $ 90.16. New trial denied, and judgment on the verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff brings the case here. Other facts are stated in the opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
Lawrence & Ferguson, for plaintiff in error.
Hatton & Ruggles, for defendant in error.
OPINION
The record presents substantially but one question, and that question has been decided by this court so many times that it ought to receive no serious consideration by this court. The allegation of error is that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the weight of evidence. The record shows ample evidence to support the verdict, and where it does so it is conclusive upon this court.
Plaintiff however contends that the court erred in permitting defendant to offer evidence in contradiction of the written memorandum offered in evidence by the plaintiff. In this there was no error. Defendant had denied this written contract, and his answer was verified.
Plaintiff also assigns as error that the court permitted defendant to offer evidence to show that he had made an over-payment on the bill of lumber purchased, and insists that such payment was voluntary and falls within the rule laid down in Commissioners v. Walker, 8 Kan. 431; Rly. Co. v Wyandotte Co., 16 id. 587; Comm'rs of Lyon Co v. Goddard, 22 id. 399. The difference which plaintiff fails to discover between this case and the ones cited is, that the defendant showed that at the time of making the payments there was some controversy about the amount due, and it was agreed between himself and the plaintiff that if it was finally discovered that the amount claimed by the plaintiff exceeded the amount of the plaintiff's claim at final settlement, plaintiff was to repay the defendant such excess. This agreement brings the case entirely without the rule laid down by this court and referred to above.
A third error alleged is, that the court erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waste Connections of Kan., Inc. v. Ritchie Corp.
...payment of the $2 million was made under the protest the September 28, 2007, documents plainly conveyed. See Juneau v. Stunkle, 40 Kan. 756, 757, 20 P. 473 (1889) (“[T]he defendant showed that at the time of making the payments there was some controversy about the amount due, and it was agr......
-
Lane v. Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co.
... ... 684; B. & O. & C. R. R. Co. v. Evarts, ... 112 Ind. 533, 14 N.E. 369; Ludwig v. Blackshere, 102 ... Iowa, 366, 71 N.W. 356; Jeneau v. Stunkle, 40 Kan ... 756, 20 P. 473; Walser v. Wear, 141 Mo. 443, 42 S.W ... 928; Woodworth v. Thompson, 44 Neb. 311, 62 N.W ... 450; Strong v ... ...
-
Lane v. Choctaw, Okla. & Gulf R.R. Co.
...9 S.E. 684; B. & O. & C. R. R. Co. v. Evarts, 112 Ind. 533, 14 N.E. 369; Ludwig v. Blackshere, 102 Iowa 366, 71 N.W. 356; Juneau v. Stunkle, 40 Kan. 756, 20 P. 473; Walser v. Wear, 141 Mo. 443, 42 S.W. 928; Woodworth v. Thompson, 44 Neb. 311, 62 N.W. 450; Strong v. Dwight, 11 Ab. Pr. N. S. ......
-
WCK v. Ritchie Corp.
...where excess payments have been made in good faith, the payor may recover the payments to which the payee was not entitled. In Juneau v. Stunkle, 40 Kan. 756, Syl. ¶ 2, 20 P. 473 (1889), the court held that where a payment on a bill for lumber was made with the understanding that if an over......