Duhne v. Hattendorf

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Duhne v. Hattendorf

143 N.W. 905, 155 Wis. 117, 1913 Wisc. LEXIS 297

DecidedNovember 18, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 143 N.W. 905 (Duhne v. Hattendorf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duhne v. Hattendorf, 143 N.W. 905, 155 Wis. 117, 1913 Wisc. LEXIS 297 (Wis. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

WiNslow, C. J.

In an action for damages for failure to^ deliver 2,300 tons of brewer’s grains the court held that a valid ,contract was shown and that it had been breached, and submitted to the jury simply the question of damages. The jury found nominal damages only, as they were told they might do-by the charge of the court. Upon motion for a new trial by the plaintiff, the trial judge on examining the evidence held that, under that part of the evidence most favorable to the defendant, the plaintiff was shown to have lost at least fifteen cents per ton on 300 tons, and hence he concluded that so-much of the charge as stated to the jury that they might re[118]*118turn a verdict for nominal damages was prejudicially erroneous, and be thereupon set aside the verdict and granted a new trial.

Examination of the evidence shows that the trial judge was right in his conclusion as to the state of the evidence and consequently was right in granting a new trial. Other questions are argued, but we have found no prejudicial error in any of the rulings of the trial court which are before us on this appeal.

By the Court. — Order affirmed.

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

WiNslow, C. J.

In an action for damages for failure to^ deliver 2,300 tons of brewer’s grains the court held that a valid ,contract was shown and that it had been breached, and submitted to the jury simply the question of damages. The jury found nominal damages only, as they were told they might do-by the charge of the court. Upon motion for a new trial by the plaintiff, the trial judge on examining the evidence held that, under that part of the evidence most favorable to the defendant, the plaintiff was shown to have lost at least fifteen cents per ton on 300 tons, and hence he concluded that so-much of the charge as stated to the jury that they might re[118]*118turn a verdict for nominal damages was prejudicially erroneous, and be thereupon set aside the verdict and granted a new trial.

Examination of the evidence shows that the trial judge was right in his conclusion as to the state of the evidence and consequently was right in granting a new trial. Other questions are argued, but we have found no prejudicial error in any of the rulings of the trial court which are before us on this appeal.

By the Court. — Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 N.W. 905, 155 Wis. 117, 1913 Wisc. LEXIS 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duhne-v-hattendorf-wis-1913.