Jefferson v. Beam

South Dakota Supreme Court

Jefferson v. Beam

169 N.W. 525, 41 S.D. 182, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 171

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 29, 1918

DocketFile No. 4334

StatusPublished

This text of 169 N.W. 525 (Jefferson v. Beam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jefferson v. Beam, 169 N.W. 525, 41 S.D. 182, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 171 (S.D. 1918).

Pincite

Opinions

GATES, J.

Action upon a promissory note; defense, that it was given for a commission upon the exchange of personal property, and that plaintiff, without the knowledge or consent of defendant, was then in the employ of the other party to the exchange and received a commission from him. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount of the note and interest. From the judgment and an order denying a new trial defendant appeals.

Under the instructions given, the jury must have believed that defendant knew of plaintiff’s other employment, and that he was to receive compensation therefrom at the time he signed the note, and there was some evidence to warrant such belief. In the view which we take of this case the issue was solely a matter of credibility of the witnesses, and a dtetailed consideration of the case would serve no useful purpose.

The judgment and order appealed1 from are affirmed.

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

GATES, J.

Action upon a promissory note; defense, that it was given for a commission upon the exchange of personal property, and that plaintiff, without the knowledge or consent of defendant, was then in the employ of the other party to the exchange and received a commission from him. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount of the note and interest. From the judgment and an order denying a new trial defendant appeals.

Under the instructions given, the jury must have believed that defendant knew of plaintiff’s other employment, and that he was to receive compensation therefrom at the time he signed the note, and there was some evidence to warrant such belief. In the view which we take of this case the issue was solely a matter of credibility of the witnesses, and a dtetailed consideration of the case would serve no useful purpose.

The judgment and order appealed1 from are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 N.W. 525, 41 S.D. 182, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jefferson-v-beam-sd-1918.