Pierce v. Caldwell

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FEATHERSTONE, C.-- Per Curiam.
• Citation: Pierce v. Caldwell, 261 P. 671, 45 Idaho 288 (Idaho 1927)
• Decision Date: 01 December 1927
• Docket Number: 4834
• Parties: FLOYD L. PIERCE, Respondent, v. JOHN W. CALDWELL, Appellant

261 P. 671

45 Idaho 288

FLOYD L. PIERCE, Respondent, v. JOHN W. CALDWELL, Appellant

No. 4834

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 1, 1927

APPEAL AND ERROR-SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE-VERDICT UNDISTURBED.

Where there is sufficient evidence uncontradicted to sustain verdict, it will not be disturbed on appeal.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Elmore County. Hon. Clinton H. Hartson. Judge.

Action for balance due on account. Judgment for respondent. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.

R. W Beckwith, for Appellant.

A judgment of the trial court will be reversed where there is no substantial evidence to sustain it. (Keltner v Bundy, 40 Idaho 402, 233 P. 516; Quayle v Ream, 15 Idaho 666, 99 P. 707; Rippetoe v. Feely, 20 Idaho 619, 119 P. 465; Breshears v. Callender, 23 Idaho 348, 131 P. 15.)

Where the verdict is manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, so as to suggest that it was rendered through bias, prejudice or passion, and that injustice has been done thereby, the verdict must be set aside. (Goldstone v. Rustemeyer, 21 Idaho 703, 123 P. 635; Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Scheele, 34 Neb. 819, 52 N.W. 817; 3 Cyc. 352, 353; McDonnell v. Jones, 25 Idaho 551, 138 P. 1123; Jones v. Bartlett, 36 Idaho 433, 211 P. 555.)

A. F. Downs and E. H. Anderson, for Respondent.

Whenever there is substantial evidence to support a verdict, the same shall not be set aside. (C. S., sec. 7170; Roseborough v. Whittington, 15 Idaho 100, 96 P. 437.)

An appellate court will not disturb the judgment of a trial court because of conflict in the evidence, where there is sufficient proof, if uncontradicted, to sustain it. (Darry v. Cox, 28 Idaho 519, 155 P. 660; Sweeten v. Ezell, 30 Idaho 154, 163 P. 612; Davenport v. Burke, 30 Idaho 599, 167 P. 481; Lambrix v. Frazier, 31 Idaho 382, 171 P. 1134; Wallace v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 31 Idaho 481, 174 P. 1009; Labonte v. Davidson, 31 Idaho 644, 175 P. 588.)

FEATHERSTONE, C. Babcock and Adair, CC., concur.

OPINION

FEATHERSTONE, C.--

Pierce brought action against Caldwell to recover a balance due of the purchase price for certain lumber sold and delivered to Caldwell. It appears that, during the month of July, 1923, Caldwell entered into an agreement with one Daugherty to purchase all lumber cut by Daugherty and his partner Pierce during that year at an agreed price of $ 32 per thousand feet. Delivery of the lumber was commenced in August. The partnership between Daugherty and Pierce was dissolved on October 9th and, in the adjustment of the partnership matters, the claim against Caldwell was assigned to and became the property of Pierce. Answering, Caldwell, by cross-complaint, set up a breach of the contract, that Pierce and Daugherty had failed to deliver all the lumber cut by them, but had sold lumber to other parties. The cause was tried to a jury, a verdict rendered for Pierce, and Caldwell has appealed from the judgment entered on the verdict.

Appellant's material specifications of error are that the verdict was rendered through bias and prejudice and was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. There was a dispute as to whether the entire cut of lumber made by the parties was delivered to appellant. There was an adjustment satisfactory to appellant made on one small lot not delivered to him.

After the dissolution of the partnership appellant, at the request of respondent, made a computation of the balance due respondent, that balance being the sum for which judgment was asked in this action. While the evidence is...