Vote-Berger Co. v. Carter-Wabeno Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 October 1912
• Citation: 151 Wis. 103,138 N.W. 47
• Parties: VOTE-BERGER CO. v. CARTER-WABENO TELEPHONE CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

151 Wis. 103

138 N.W. 47

VOTE-BERGER CO.

v.CARTER-WABENO TELEPHONE CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 29, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Forest County; John Goodland, Judge.

Action by the Vote-Berger Company against the Carter-Wabeno Telephone Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Action to recover on a promissory note which, by inadvertence, as alleged, had been canceled and returned to the maker as paid, contrary to the facts. The defendant, by answer, insisted that the note was duly paid and canceled according to a memorandum thereon.

The evidence was to the effect that the note was given by defendant December 1, 1908, and returned to the maker March 12, 1909. The memorandum on the paper was as follows: “Paid. Vote-Berger Company by C. S. Boley.” Mr. Boley was the bookkeeper, cashier and auditor for plaintiff and possessed authority to receive payment on the note and cancel it. He returned it by mail, with a letter calling attention thereto, as canceled. There was conflicting testimony, independent of the circumstances aforesaid, respecting payment of the note.

The trial was by the court and resulted in findings in favor of defendant. Judgment was rendered accordingly.Mills Tourtellotte, of La Crosse, and W. A. Wescott, of Crandon, for appellant.

J. F. Hooper, of Crandon, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The sole complaint by appellant is that the findings are not warranted by the evidence. The case is presented in anticipation of this court carefully weighing such evidence and noting, efficiently, preponderating weight without regard to the persuasive effect of the trial opinion. This court has no very nicely balanced scale with which to weigh evidence. Such are afforded only in trial jurisdictions. It follows that great weight in favor of findings of fact made there must be accorded thereto and reasonable doubts resolved in favor thereof. Unless the evidence so strongly preponderates against the same as to indicate, clearly, that they are wrong notwithstanding the presumption in their favor, they cannot be disturbed. Tested thereby, we are constrained to hold that the findings here give the correct state of case.

Judgment affirmed.