Acme Harvesting Machine Co. v. Hunckler

Indiana Court of Appeals

Acme Harvesting Machine Co. v. Hunckler

139 N.E. 591, 80 Ind. App. 143, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 103

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 1923

DocketNo. 11,621

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 N.E. 591 (Acme Harvesting Machine Co. v. Hunckler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acme Harvesting Machine Co. v. Hunckler, 139 N.E. 591, 80 Ind. App. 143, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, J.

Action by appellant against appellee, in three paragraphs, the first of which was on a written agency contract; the second paragraph for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered; and the third paragraph on a written contract for the sale of goods.

Appellee filed an answer in general denial; a plea of payment, and a cross-complaint setting up the contract sued on in appellant’s third paragraph of complaint, alleging a breach and praying $200 damages.

The cause was tried before a jury which returned a general verdict for appellee. After motion for a new trial which was overruled, there was a judgment on the verdict. The error assigned is the court’s action in overruling the motion for a new trial, the reasons for which were that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence and that it was contrary to law. Appellant rightly contends that, where the verdict of the jury is contrary to the uncontradicted evidence, such verdict should be set aside as not sustained by sufficient evidence. Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Yung (1888), 113 Ind. 159, 15 N. E. 220, 3 Am. St. 630; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Wolford (1912), 49 Ind. App. 392, 97 N. E. 444. But it has been many times decided that, where there is any evidence which fairly tends to support the verdict, the finding of the jury concludes the question. Jeffersonville Mfg. Co. v. Holden (1913), 180 Ind. 301, 102 N. E. 21. The evidence in this case is, contradictory and confusing. The attorneys do not agree in their interpretation of it. We have examined it with care and we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Nichols, J.

Action by appellant against appellee, in three paragraphs, the first of which was on a written agency contract; the second paragraph for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered; and the third paragraph on a written contract for the sale of goods.

Appellee filed an answer in general denial; a plea of payment, and a cross-complaint setting up the contract sued on in appellant’s third paragraph of complaint, alleging a breach and praying $200 damages.

The cause was tried before a jury which returned a general verdict for appellee. After motion for a new trial which was overruled, there was a judgment on the verdict. The error assigned is the court’s action in overruling the motion for a new trial, the reasons for which were that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence and that it was contrary to law. Appellant rightly contends that, where the verdict of the jury is contrary to the uncontradicted evidence, such verdict should be set aside as not sustained by sufficient evidence. Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Yung (1888), 113 Ind. 159, 15 N. E. 220, 3 Am. St. 630; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Wolford (1912), 49 Ind. App. 392, 97 N. E. 444. But it has been many times decided that, where there is any evidence which fairly tends to support the verdict, the finding of the jury concludes the question. Jeffersonville Mfg. Co. v. Holden (1913), 180 Ind. 301, 102 N. E. 21. The evidence in this case is, contradictory and confusing. The attorneys do not agree in their interpretation of it. We have examined it with care and we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 N.E. 591, 80 Ind. App. 143, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acme-harvesting-machine-co-v-hunckler-indctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack