Merriman v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 January 1899
• Citation: 101 Wis. 619,77 N.W. 880
• Parties: MERRIMAN ET AL. v. MCCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

101 Wis. 619

77 N.W. 880

MERRIMAN ET AL.

v.MCCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 10, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Green county; John R. Bennett, Judge.

Action by A. D. Merriman and others against the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The facts out of which this case grows, and the decision of the general questions of law involved therein, will be found in 96 Wis. 600, 71 N. W. 1050. Under the order in that case a reference was had, testimony taken, and the referee's report confirmed, finding that of the 29 orders there mentioned 19 were afterwards filled with McCormick machines, and that the value of the plaintiffs' services in obtaining said orders was $317. Defendant again appeals.Quarles, Spence & Quarles, for appellant.

L. B. Caswell and W. H. Rogers, for respondents.

DODGE, J.

1. We have carefully examined the evidence in this case, and find that there is support for the findings as to the filling of all of the orders except that of Charles Maske, and also as to the value of plaintiffs' services. There is no exception to the finding as to the filling of the Maske order. Under the uniform rule of this court, therefore, the findings will not be disturbed.

2. The second and third assignments of error are predicated on the refusal of the referee to admit certain evidence. The defendant offered to prove that “the McCormick Company, after the 22d of March, 1893, retook of the [six] men named separate, distinct, and new orders for machinery manufactured by the McCormick Company, which orders were afterwards filled by the delivery of the machines called for by those orders.” The rest of the offer was of purely hearsay evidence. Defendant also offered the “retaken” written orders. The evidence was wholly immaterial. The issue submitted to the court below was a very simple one, namely, how many of the orders taken by the plaintiffs were filled with McCormick machines? The fact that the defendant, for reasons of its own, saw fit to have these customers execute new written orders could in no wise change the result. If it delivered machines to the persons from whom the plaintiffs had taken orders, its liability for reasonable compensation to the plaintiffs was established by the previous decision in this case. Had the defendant proved, as it offered, that certain of the orders were “retaken,” it would in no wise have militated against that liability....