Thielen v. Rath
Decision Date | 20 October 1891 |
Parties | THIELEN v. RATH. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Clark county; ALFRED W. NEWMAN, Judge.
Action of replevin by Henry Thielen against John Rath. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor, directed by the court, defendant appeals. Reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Replevin to recover possession of 4,434 half-barrel staves, 822 pieces of half-barrel heading, and 2,869 quarter-barrel staves, taken and detained by defendant in two freight-cars at the railroad depot in Greenwood, Clark county. Both parties claimed the title to the disputed property by purchase from Stafford Bros., who made the staves. They had been made during the winter of 1890-91, and hauled to the depot grounds, and there piled. Plaintiff proved that he purchased them of the Staffords March 14, 1891, and that he commenced loading them at once on cars. The defendant stopped him from further loading on the 24th of March, and the station agent forbade shipment; hence the plaintiff brought replevin. Defendant proved that he made a written contract with the Staffords November 1, 1890, for the manufacture and delivery of 100,000 staves, the material facts of which are as follows: There was evidence tending to show that Rath was at Staffords' camp in January, 1891, and that one of the Staffords suggested that they would get 125,000 staves off from the land on which they were cutting, and perhaps more, and that Rath said: to which Stafford replied: “That was all right, and they would do it.” The evidence also tended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coffin v. Bradbury
...the jury, and their finding is conclusive. (Garfield v. Paris, 96 U.S. 557; Galvin v. Mackenzie, 21 Or. 184, 27 P. 1039; Theilen v. Rath, 80 Wis. 263, 50 N.W. 183; Baker Sales, sec. 282a.) Where there is a conflict of evidence, the supreme court will not inquire into the sufficiency of the ......
- Day v. Gumaer