Cody v. Bemis

40 Wis. 666
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1876·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Ryan, C. J.

The complaint avers that the respondent paid the appellants for the bureau in question. The proof is, that he made the payment through a third person, his debtor, who delivered or had delivered logs for him to the appellants, to the amount of the price, for which the respondent gave him credit. If a variance, this is only a variance which could not mislead the appellants, and cannot disturb the judgment here. Harris v. Wicks, 28 Wis., 198; Strahlendorf v. Rosenthal, 30 id., 674; Flanders v. Cottrell, 36 id., 564.

The other matters argued here were pure questions of fact, arising on a conflict of evidence, fairly submitted by the court below to the jury, and which the jury found for the respondent. It is not for us to review such a finding.

By the Court. — The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

Cody v. Bemis, 40 Wis. 666 (Wis. 1876).

40 Wis. 666 (Cody v. Bemis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hopkins v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
107 N.W. 330 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1906)
McKinney v. Jones
11 N.W. 606 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1882)