Fisher v. Jenkins

Indiana Court of Appeals

Fisher v. Jenkins

34 N.E. 1006, 7 Ind. App. 697, 1893 Ind. App. LEXIS 319

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 13, 1893

DocketNo. 979

StatusPublished

This text of 34 N.E. 1006 (Fisher v. Jenkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fisher v. Jenkins, 34 N.E. 1006, 7 Ind. App. 697, 1893 Ind. App. LEXIS 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Boss, J.

The appellee filed his complaint in the Hamilton Circuit Court against the appellant, to recover possession of personal property. The venue was changed to the Marion Circuit Court, and, upon a trial of the cause without the intervention of a jury, the court found in favor of the appellee, and rendered judgment accordingly. Two errors are assigned on this appeal, but one of which has been discussed by counsel, “that the court below erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.” The principal question urged under [698]*698this assignment is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding.

Filed Oct. 13, 1893.

The facts disclosed by the evidence are that, in October, 1888, the appellant, "William A. Fisher, sold to the appellant, William H. Eller, a stock of groceries, in Noblesville, Indiana, and Eller, after running the business for some two or three months, traded the same to the appellee for certain real estate and foundry stock, and the balance to be paid in cash.

The disputed questions, as disclosed by the evidence, relate to the sale from Fisher to Eller, the appellants claiming it to have been a conditional sale, the title remaining in Fisher until Eller paid the purchase money, which he had not done when he made the trade with the appellee. The evidence is conflicting relative to the terms and conditions of the sale from Fisher to Eller, and the court below having decided against the appellants, this court will not disturb the finding.

When there is any evidence to sustain a finding of the court below, this court will not weigh the evidence and determine which side has a preponderance.

Judgment affirmed.

Davis, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

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

Boss, J.

The appellee filed his complaint in the Hamilton Circuit Court against the appellant, to recover possession of personal property. The venue was changed to the Marion Circuit Court, and, upon a trial of the cause without the intervention of a jury, the court found in favor of the appellee, and rendered judgment accordingly. Two errors are assigned on this appeal, but one of which has been discussed by counsel, “that the court below erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.” The principal question urged under [698]*698this assignment is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding.

Filed Oct. 13, 1893.

The facts disclosed by the evidence are that, in October, 1888, the appellant, "William A. Fisher, sold to the appellant, William H. Eller, a stock of groceries, in Noblesville, Indiana, and Eller, after running the business for some two or three months, traded the same to the appellee for certain real estate and foundry stock, and the balance to be paid in cash.

The disputed questions, as disclosed by the evidence, relate to the sale from Fisher to Eller, the appellants claiming it to have been a conditional sale, the title remaining in Fisher until Eller paid the purchase money, which he had not done when he made the trade with the appellee. The evidence is conflicting relative to the terms and conditions of the sale from Fisher to Eller, and the court below having decided against the appellants, this court will not disturb the finding.

When there is any evidence to sustain a finding of the court below, this court will not weigh the evidence and determine which side has a preponderance.

Judgment affirmed.

Davis, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.E. 1006, 7 Ind. App. 697, 1893 Ind. App. LEXIS 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-jenkins-indctapp-1893.