Morin v. Pilon

• Decision Date: 27 October 1914
• Citation: 149 N.W. 140,159 Wis. 411
• Parties: MORIN v. PILON ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

159 Wis. 411

149 N.W. 140

MORIN

v.PILON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 27, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Forest County; Wm. B. Quinlan, Judge.

Action by Napoleon Morin against Maggie Pilon and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Modified and affirmed.Samuel Shaw, of Crandon, for appellants.

John F. Hooper, of Crandon (M. G. Eberlein, of Shawano, of counsel), for respondent.

TIMLIN, J.

The learned circuit court had the advantage of observing the witnesses on the stand, and presumptions in support of his findings and judgment are such that they must be upheld so far as they deal with questions of fact, notwithstanding it seems the defendants were quite severely punished and the plaintiff liberally rewarded. The decree in favor of the plaintiff awards him $3,212.06, costs amounting to $243.46 were added, and the title to the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section 24, township 37 north, range 13 east, was divested from the defendants and confirmed in the plaintiff. Of this cash recovery $286.05 is for one-half of the proceeds of a sale of ginseng root, $650 is for the whole proceeds of another sale of ginseng root, and $1,050 is composed of the value, as found, of a shed over the ginseng plants $400, of a small house built near the ginseng garden for use therewith $200, and of the ginseng beds remaining $450, making together $1,050 for the last three items. It was not disputed that the defendants contributed the land, and we think it is shown that they contributed the greater part of the labor, and the plaintiff contributed some or all of the ginseng roots and nearly all the material for the shed and some for the house and did the carpenter work on the house. He was a single man and lived with defendants in their farmhouse during such time as he was not working for wages in lumbering and during whatever time he worked on this ginseng garden or the buildings connected therewith. The relations of the parties were very intimate at that time. They are now very hostile. Neither seems willing to make any sacrifice of self-interest for the sake of veracity. Only two versions of this ginseng enterprise are presented: One, that of the defendants, to the effect, in substance, that they were to furnish the land, take care of the ginseng garden during the absence of plaintiff, which was for the greater part of each year, and do the work, or as much of it as they could, and the plaintiff was to furnish the roots and his work, and each was to have half of the proceeds of the ginseng crops. The plaintiff's version is that the defendants were to furnish the land and were to work and take care of the ginseng garden during...