Kola Lumber Co. v. Stoughton Wagon Co.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1910 |
| Citation | 127 N.W. 974,143 Wis. 329 |
| Parties | KOLA LUMBER CO. v. STOUGHTON WAGON CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dane County; E. Ray Stevens, Judge.
Action by the Kola Lumber Company against the Stoughton Wagon Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Plaintiff brings this action to recover the purchase price of a car load of wagon bottoms shipped by it to defendant without any order from defendant requesting it so to do. The bottoms so shipped were used by defendant. Prior to the making of the shipment the defendant had entered into an executory contract with the Ellisville Lumber Company to furnish it a number of wagon bottoms. A jury was waived, and the trial court found that the car in question was shipped in part execution of the contract between the Ellisville Lumber Company and the defendant, that it was shipped by the plaintiff for and upon the credit of the Ellisville Lumber Company, and that the Ellisville Lumber Company, and not the plaintiff, was the real party in interest. On the findings so made judgment was entered dismissing the complaint.Tenney, Hall & Tenney, for appellant.
Olin & Butler, for respondent.
BARNES, J. (after stating the facts as above).
If any contract relation existed between plaintiff and defendant, it existed by implication only. Certain facts were testified to from which the court might well have inferred an implied contract on the part of the defendant to pay plaintiff for the lumber. Other facts were shown from which it could be legitimately inferred that the plaintiff shipped the lumber in part execution of the contract between the Ellisville Lumber Company and the defendant, and upon the credit of the Ellisville Lumber Company. It is as logical to draw the latter inference from the evidence as it is the former. “Upon evidence fairly justifying either of two inferences, the decision of the trial court must control.” Spuhr v. Kolb, 111 Wis. 119, 120, 86 N. W. 562.
It is not the custom of this court to embody in its opinions the evidence sustaining the findings of trial courts, inasmuch as no useful purpose would be served by so doing.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hintz v. Wagner
... ... decision of the trial court must control. Kola Lumber Co ... v. Stoughton Wagon Co. 143 Wis. 329, 127 N.W. 974; ... ...
-
Goetz v. Zeif
...86 N. W. 562;Ripon Hardware Co. v. Haas, 163 Wis. 592, 158 N. W. 330;Olson v. Olson, 149 Wis. 248, 135 N. W. 836;Kola L. Co. v. Stoughton W. Co., 143 Wis. 329, 127 N. W. 974. Counsel for respondent served notice for a review, pursuant to section 3049a, Stats., of a finding of the court by w......
- Kilpinski v. Bishop
-
Simon v. Lecker
...warrants either of two conclusions the court is deemed to have taken the view that supports its conclusion. Kola Lumber Co. v. Stoughton Wagon Co., 143 Wis. 329, 127 N.W. 974. As the court did not limit the relief granted to what was necessary to protection of the attorneys the order should......