Christopherson v. Unke

South Dakota Supreme Court

Christopherson v. Unke

59 N.W.2d 423, 75 S.D. 72, 1953 S.D. LEXIS 21

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedJune 25, 1953

DocketFile No. 9346

StatusPublished

This text of 59 N.W.2d 423 (Christopherson v. Unke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Christopherson v. Unke, 59 N.W.2d 423, 75 S.D. 72, 1953 S.D. LEXIS 21 (S.D. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a companion case to Unke v. Thorpe, 75 S.D. 65, 59 N.W.2d 419, and resort must be had to the facts outlined in that case for a more full understanding of the factual background of this case.

By his complaint the plaintiff Christopherson seeks to recover from defendant Unke $7,218.83 which he alleges he paid to F. L. Thorpe and C. W. Waters at the request of defendant as the purchase price of alfalfa seed. The defendant Unke denied that the payment was made at his request.

An issue of fact was presented to the court (1) whether defendant directed or authorized the payment and (2) if he did, whether he later impliedly or expressly revoked that authorization. The evidence was in sharp conflict. The trial court elected to believe the plaintiff and his witnesses. We cannot say the trial court was not justified in believing plaintiff’s witnesses, or that the clear preponderance of the evidence is against its findings. Therefore, we are not at liberty to disturb the judgment. Houck v. Hult, 63 S.D. 290, 258 N.W. 142; Scott v. Liechti, 70 S.D. 89, 15 N.W.2d 1; and Rhode v. Farup, 67 S.D. 437, 293 N.W. 632.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All the Judges concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a companion case to Unke v. Thorpe, 75 S.D. 65, 59 N.W.2d 419, and resort must be had to the facts outlined in that case for a more full understanding of the factual background of this case.

By his complaint the plaintiff Christopherson seeks to recover from defendant Unke $7,218.83 which he alleges he paid to F. L. Thorpe and C. W. Waters at the request of defendant as the purchase price of alfalfa seed. The defendant Unke denied that the payment was made at his request.

An issue of fact was presented to the court (1) whether defendant directed or authorized the payment and (2) if he did, whether he later impliedly or expressly revoked that authorization. The evidence was in sharp conflict. The trial court elected to believe the plaintiff and his witnesses. We cannot say the trial court was not justified in believing plaintiff’s witnesses, or that the clear preponderance of the evidence is against its findings. Therefore, we are not at liberty to disturb the judgment. Houck v. Hult, 63 S.D. 290, 258 N.W. 142; Scott v. Liechti, 70 S.D. 89, 15 N.W.2d 1; and Rhode v. Farup, 67 S.D. 437, 293 N.W. 632.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 N.W.2d 423, 75 S.D. 72, 1953 S.D. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopherson-v-unke-sd-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack