Weichman v. Kast

• Decision Date: 21 May 1914
• Docket Number: No. 102.,102.
• Citation: Weichman v. Kast, 157 Wis. 316, 147 N.W. 369 (Wis. 1914)
• Parties: WEICHMAN ET AL. v. KAST.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

157 Wis. 316

147 N.W. 369

WEICHMAN ET AL.

v.KAST.

No. 102.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 21, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Crawford County; George Clementson, Judge.

Action by William Weichman and others against H. C. C. Kast. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.Alexander Athey and H. C. C. Kast, both of Prairie du Chien, for appellant.

Graves & Earll, of Prairie du Chien, for respondents.

KERWIN, J.

This action was commenced in a justice's court and upon stipulation and bond filed it was removed to the circuit court, where it was tried by the court, a jury having been waived. The action was to recover balance due on contract for the sale of real estate. The court found as follows: That on or about February 26, 1912, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract in writing wherein and whereby defendant was to pay said plaintiffs the sum of $1,600 as follows: $1,000 down, same to be paid by transfer of a certain mill property valued by the parties at $800 and by payment of $200 in cash, the cash in fact to be paid when plaintiffs should get the real estate described in the contract released from incumbrance, balance to be paid in annual installments of $150 each; that in consideration of said payments to be made by defendant plaintiffs were to convey to him certain real estate (describing it) in Crawford county; that plaintiff subsequently conveyed said real estate to defendant, and defendant executed a note and mortgage to plaintiffs for payment of $600 as agreed to be paid in annual installments; that said contract was never modified; that on or about the 1st of June, 1912, plaintiffs procured a release of the incumbrance on said real estate, presented same to defendant, and demanded payment of the $200 to be paid them, and defendant refused and neglected to pay the same, and has ever since refused and neglected to pay the same; that no part of said sum of $200 has ever been paid. The court concluded that there is justly due and owing the plaintiffs from defendant $200, with interest at 6 per cent. per annum from June 1, 1912, with costs and disbursements of action. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs, from which this appeal was taken.

Two grounds are urged for reversal: (1) That the findings are not supported by the evidence; and (2) that a new trial should have been granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

1. A careful examination of the record convinces us that the findings are well supported by the evidence.

[1] 2. We are also satisfied that there was no error in denying the motion for new trial. The ground of new trial set up in the moving papers is alleged newly discovered evidence, impeaching or cumulative in character. It is alleged that the defendant did not know...