Meeker v. Trappett
| Decision Date | 10 June 1913 |
| Citation | 133 P. 117,24 Idaho 198 |
| Parties | M. I. MEEKER et al., Appellants, v. J. J. TRAPPETT, Respondent |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.
1. Evidence in this case examined and held sufficient to support the verdict and judgment.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District for Bear Lake County. Hon. Alfred Budge, Judge.
Action for debt. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded in favor of respondent.
Thomas L. Glenn, for Appellants.
John A. Bagley, for Respondent.
Counsel cite no authorities.
This action was instituted by the appellant to recover commission for the sale of real estate. Defendant answered and filed a cross-complaint, claiming a balance of $ 15 due from plaintiff to defendant on account. The case went to trial and a verdict was returned against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant on his cross-complaint, and judgment was thereupon entered.
The only question presented on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence on the cause of action set forth in the plaintiff's complaint is decidedly in favor of the appellant, but there is substantial evidence supporting the contention of the respondent, and under the statute (sec. 4824) and the established rule in this state, this court would not be justified in reversing the judgment on this account.
There is also a sharp conflict in the evidence concerning the cause of action set forth in defendant's cross-complaint. The jury, however, has also found that issue in favor of the defendant and there is evidence which supports the verdict.
For these reasons the judgment in this case must be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Costs awarded in favor of respondent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.
...of a jury, or a finding of a court, will not be set aside where there is substantial evidence to support the same. (Meeker v. Trappett, 24 Idaho 198, 133 P. 117; Denbeigh v. Oregon-Washington, etc., Pomeroy v. Gordan, 25 Idaho 279, 137 P. 888; Swanstrom v. Frost, 26 Idaho 79, 140 P. 1105; W......
-
Snoderly v. Bower
...P. 1050; Coe v. McGran, 23 Idaho 582, 131 P. 1110; Denbeigh v. Oregon-Washington R. etc. Co., 23 Idaho 663, 132 P. 112; Meeker v. Trappett, 24 Idaho 198, 133 P. 117; Davidson Grocery Co. v. Johnston, 24 Idaho 336, Cas. 1915C, 1129, 133 P. 929; Casady v. Stuart, 29 Idaho 714, 161 P. 1026; Hu......
-
Pence v. Shivers
...Idaho 561, 131 P. 8; Lott v. Oregon Short Line, 23 Idaho 324, 130 P. 88; Breshears v. Callender, 23 Idaho 348, 131 P. 15; Meeker v. Trapett, 24 Idaho 198, 133 P. 117.) Commissioner. McCarthy, C. J., and Budge and Wm. E. Lee, JJ., concur. OPINION BRINCK, Commissioner Frank D. Shivers appeals......
-
Gem State Sales Company v. Rudin Brothers, Inc.
... ... 1078; Quirk v. Sunderlin, 23 Idaho ... 368, 130 P. 374; Wheeler v. Gilmore etc. R. R. Co., ... Ltd., 23 Idaho 479, 130 P. 801; Meeker v ... Trappett, 24 Idaho 198, 133 P. 117; Denney v ... Arritola, 31 Idaho 428, 174 P. 135; Oregon Short ... Line R. R. Co. v. Mt. States T. & T ... ...