Cope Ford, Inc. v. Lastfogel

184 A.2d 206, 1962 D.C. App. LEXIS 377
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided September 18, 1962·No. 3054·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action appellant sought to recover from appellee certain sums of money it had paid him while he was in its employ. Appellant’s theory was that the sums paid were loans advanced to appellee. Appellee’s defense was that the sums were paid him as salary. The contract of employment was oral, and the main issue was whether appel-lee was employed as a salesman on a commission basis or as "truck manager” on a salary. The case was submitted to a jury under instructions to which no exceptions were taken, and the jury returned a verdict for appellee.

The only error assigned is that the verdict was not in accord with the weight of the evidence. This court has no power to weigh the evidence; that was the function of the jury; and when the jury performs its function under proper instructions, its verdict must stand.

Affirmed.

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

Cope Ford, Inc. v. Lastfogel, 184 A.2d 206, 1962 D.C. App. LEXIS 377 (D.C. 1962).

184 A.2d 206 (Cope Ford, Inc. v. Lastfogel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wheeler v. United States
930 A.2d 232 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2007)
Dollak v. EDUCATIONAL AIDS COMPANY
214 A.2d 481 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1965)
American Marietta Co. v. Griffin
203 A.2d 710 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1964)
Matthew A. Welch & Sons, Inc. v. Bird
193 A.2d 736 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1963)
V. E. M. Hotel Service, Inc. v. Uline, Inc.
190 A.2d 812 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1963)
Richardson v. JC Flood Company
190 A.2d 259 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1963)