Weiss v. Evans

• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CORSON
• Citation: Weiss v. Evans, 13 S.D. 185, 82 N.W. 388 (S.D. 1900)
• Decision Date: 03 April 1900
• Parties: WEISS v. EVANS.

13 S.D. 185

82 N.W. 388

WEISS

v.EVANS.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

April 3, 1900.

Appeal from circuit court, Lake county; Joseph W. Jones, Judge.

Action by C. H. Weiss against Louisa Evans. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.Wm. McGrath (Aikens & Judge, of counsel), for appellant. Murray & Porter, for respondent.

CORSON, J.

This is an action to recover for goods, wares, and merchandise alleged to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The case was tried to a jury, and, the verdict and judgment being in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals to this court.

It is disclosed by the evidence that the goods were sold and delivered to the appellant's husband, and it is claimed by the appellant that the proof showing that her husband was her agent in the purchase of the goods, or that she ratified or confirmed his acts as such agent subsequent to the purchase, was insufficient to justify the verdict of the jury. The evidence was conflicting, and in such cases this court will not weigh the same, or go further than to determine therefrom whether or not there is sufficient legal evidence to sustain the verdict, without regard to the evidence given by the adverse party. Jeansch v. Lewis, 1 S. D. 609, 48 N. W. 128. In cases where there is a conflict of evidence the jury are the exclusive judges of the credibility of witnesses, and the weight to be given to their evidence; and, in order to sustain the verdict of the jury, we may assume that they believed the testimony of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the respondent, and disregarded the testimony of the witnesses on the part of the appellant. In Jeansch v. Lewis, supra, this court cited with approval the rule so well stated in Brewing Co. v. Mielenz, 5 Dak. 136, 37 N. W. 728, as follows: “In considering the verdict of a jury in any particular case, to determine whether or not it is sustained by the evidence, we are not to speculate or query how we would have viewed the evidence and testimony, or what verdict we would have rendered, had we been of the jury. The real and only question to be solved and answered is, is there any legal evidence upon which the verdict can properly be based, and the conclusions embraced in and covered by it be fairly reached? It is the province of the jury to weigh and pass upon the evidence; to reconcile conflicting testimony; to determine the truth or value of evidence; to ascertain and declare,...