Earlywine v. Lindley
This text of 29 N.W. 224 (Earlywine v. Lindley) 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.
Opinion
This is an action to foreclose a mortgage given bj the appellant to the respondent. The only question raised upon this appeal is a question of fact.
The mortgage was given to secure the performance of a contract on the part of the appellant to furnish board, washing, mending, and sewing for the respondent at her house, described in the contract, during the life of the respondent, and the only question tried, about which there was any dispute, uas whether the appellant had refused to perform the contract on her part. The evidence was conflicting, and the court has found, against the appellant, that she had refused to perform the contract on her part. After a careful reading of the evidence, we are not prepared to say that the learned judge erred in his judgment upon the evidence. There is no such decided preponderance of the evidence against the finding as would justify this court in reversing the same.
By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
29 N.W. 224, 66 Wis. 494, 1886 Wisc. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earlywine-v-lindley-wis-1886.