Polus v. Conner
| Decision Date | 26 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | 14,120 |
| Parties | POLUS v. CONNER |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Marion Circuit Court (44,205); Harry O. Chamberlin, Judge.
Action by Charles E. Conner against Anest (Apostle) Polus. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
Draper & Zilson, for appellant.
Raymond F. Murray, for appellee.
The complaint in this action is based on a verbal contract between appellant and appellee for the remodeling and repair of a storeroom belonging to the appellant in Indianapolis, by the terms of which the appellee alleges in his complaint that the appellant agreed to pay for the cost of material, plus 10 per cent profit. Appellant filed an answer in general denial to the complaint, and, on the trial claimed that appellee was to do the work and furnish the material for a sum not to exceed $ 350, plus an additional charge for electric work, plus 10 per cent. There was a trial by the court without the intervention of a jury, with a finding and judgment against appellant in the sum of $ 860.04.
The error assigned is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial, which was upon the grounds that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law, and that the amount of recovery is too large.
The motion for a new trial also alleges the court erred in admitting in evidence on behalf of (plaintiff) appellee, over the objection of appellant, Exhibits 1 and 3, being ledger sheets purporting to show charges against appellant.
Appellee introduced oral testimony to the effect that the material and labor was furnished to appellant and the work was done according to the contract as claimed by appellee in his claim in the amount as found by the trial court. Appellant testified as to the terms of the contract as stated above. The question as to what the contract was and whether the appellee had complied with the terms thereof was a question of fact for the court to decide.
Cecil Mullen, bookkeeper for appellee, produced two ledger sheets of account with the appellant, which he testified was a complete account of the transactions with appellee for 1929 that no other record was kept by appellee. It was kept from day to day in due course of business of the company's transactions which were made. The ledger sheets were then offered in evidence, and were admitted over the objection of appellant, which was upon the ground that the ledger is not a book of original entry. The ledger sheets showed the material delivered as testified to by witnesses for appellee. It is true that...
To continue reading
Request your trial