Roesner v. American Car & Foundry Co.

• Decision Date: 18 January 1937
• Docket Number: No. 15314.,15314.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Parties: ROESNER et al. v. AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO.

104 Ind.App. 55

5 N.E.2d 688

ROESNER et al.

v.AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO.

No. 15314.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

January 18, 1937.

Appeal from Superior Court, Marion County; Russell Ryan, Judge.

Action by the American Car & Foundry Company against Charles Roesner, doing business under the registered firm name and style of the Central Transfer & Storage Company, and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.Joseph T. Markey and J. B. Kammins, both of Indianapolis, for appellants.

Ryan & Ruckelshaus, of Indianapolis, and Piety & Piety, of Terre Haute, for appellee.

CURTIS, Judge.

This was an action by the appellee against the appellants on quantum meruit for the reasonable value of certain truck and trailer bodies and certain repairs furnished by the appellee to the appellants at the special instance and request of the appellants. With the complaint was filed Exhibit A, which itemized the account as follows:

“(Exhibit A)

“Charles Roesner, doing business under the registered firm name and style of Central Transfer & Storage Company, Incorporated,

--to--

American Cab and Foundry Company 1930.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦Oct. 3--To one (1) closed body for International A-4 truck chassis ¦$ 340.00 ¦
                ¦Invoice dated October 3, 1930-1931                                 ¦         ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+---------¦
                ¦Feb. 27--To one (1) enclosed trailer body No. 464--Invoice No. 6154¦390.00   ¦
                ¦dated April 30, 1931                                               ¦         ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+---------¦
                ¦Mar. 11--To one (1) stake trailer body No. 474--Invoice No. 6154   ¦235.00   ¦
                ¦dated                                                              ¦         ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+---------¦
                ¦Mar. 27--To one (1) closed truck body No. 471 trailer--Invoice No. ¦474.00   ¦
                ¦6154, dated April 30, 1931                                         ¦         ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+---------¦
                ¦June 8--To repairs on trailer--Invoice No. 6094, dated June 8, 1931¦190.00   ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+---------¦
                ¦Sept. 16--To one (1) closed trailer body Invoice No. 6087 dated    ¦474.00   ¦
                ¦January 15, 1932                                                   ¦         ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+---------¦
                ¦                                                                   ¦$2,103.00¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+---------¦
                ¦Less credits                                                       ¦$1,150.00¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+---------¦
                ¦Balance due and unpaid                                             ¦$ 953.00 ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

To the complaint the appellants filed, first a general denial; second, a plea of payment; and in third and fourth paragraphs of answer it was alleged that the appellee was guilty of a breach of implied warranty as to the first item of Exhibit A and that the appellee ought not to recover thereon.

The cause was submitted to the court for trial without a jury, resulting in a finding for the appellee and against the appellants in the sum of $613, upon which finding a judgment was rendered. The finding of the court was as follows: “Come again the parties by counsel and the court having heretofore heard the evidence in this cause and having taken the same under advisement now finds for the defendant on its third paragraph of answer and against the defendant on its first, second and fourth paragraphs of answer and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover of and from the defendant the sum of $613.00 and the costs therein.” The appellee has not assigned cross-error as to the court's finding against it as to item one of the account.

It will be observed that the court found that the account which the appellee sued upon as shown by Exhibit A was correct except as to the first item and that the court deducted the amount of the first item, to wit, $340, from the account as claimed by the appellee in said Exhibit A and rendered judgment for the appellee for the remaining part of the account, to wit, for a balance of $613. The appellants in due time filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled with an exception reserved, and this appeal thereafter prosecuted. The first four causes or grounds of the motion for a new trial may be grouped as follows: That the finding and decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient...