Haslen Sales Corp. v. Washmobile Corp.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Haslen Sales Corp. v. Washmobile Corp.

184 A.2d 855, 1962 D.C. App. LEXIS 394

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 26, 1962

Docket3076

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 184 A.2d 855 (Haslen Sales Corp. v. Washmobile Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haslen Sales Corp. v. Washmobile Corp., 184 A.2d 855, 1962 D.C. App. LEXIS 394 (D.C. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, plaintiff below, sued appellant for the value of merchandise sold and delivered. Appellant argued in the trial court, and urges here, that the judgment was plainly wrong and without evidence to support it. This is the sole assignment of error.

We have considered the documentary evidence and the oral testimony and it is clear that different conclusions could properly have been drawn therefrom. This court has set forth many times the limited scope of appellate review in situations such as this. Here appellant contended that the merchandise was paid for and appellee denied receiving payment. The court saw the witnesses and had the opportunity to weigh their credibility, and we have no right under the guise of appellate review to retry the fact issue presented.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, plaintiff below, sued appellant for the value of merchandise sold and delivered. Appellant argued in the trial court, and urges here, that the judgment was plainly wrong and without evidence to support it. This is the sole assignment of error.

We have considered the documentary evidence and the oral testimony and it is clear that different conclusions could properly have been drawn therefrom. This court has set forth many times the limited scope of appellate review in situations such as this. Here appellant contended that the merchandise was paid for and appellee denied receiving payment. The court saw the witnesses and had the opportunity to weigh their credibility, and we have no right under the guise of appellate review to retry the fact issue presented.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.2d 855, 1962 D.C. App. LEXIS 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haslen-sales-corp-v-washmobile-corp-dc-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack