Kuhns v. New Farmers Grain Co.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Kuhns v. New Farmers Grain Co.

173 N.W. 727, 42 S.D. 181, 1919 S.D. LEXIS 100

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1919

DocketFile No. 4384

StatusPublished

This text of 173 N.W. 727 (Kuhns v. New Farmers Grain Co.) 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

Kuhns v. New Farmers Grain Co., 173 N.W. 727, 42 S.D. 181, 1919 S.D. LEXIS 100 (S.D. 1919).

Pincite

Opinions

WHITING, J.

The plaintiff is a farmer; the defendant a corporation engaged in the purchase of grain. Plaintiff brought this action alleging that he had sold defendant a certain number of bushels of wheat, at a stated price for such as graded No. I and at another- stated price for such as graded No. 2; and further alleging that defendant had failed Lo pay some $500 of the agreed purchase price. Defendant admitted the purchase of the wheat; admitted the -number of bushels of each grade of wheat and the price to be paid for each grade — except that it alleged that it was part of the agreement that, if such wheat was subject to dockage for smut, then there should be deducted from the agreed price of each grade the sum of $.25 per bushel; and alleged that said wheat proved to be smutty .md that it had made proper deductions for smut and had paid plaintiff in full for the wheat. Trial was had to the -court without a jury. The court found that plaintiff sold the number of bushels of wheat alleged; that, by the terms of the contract entered into, plaintiff was entitled to receive a -certain named- sum; that he had received the amount confessedly paid; and that there was still due him the sum of $208.20. The court' concluded that plaintiff was entitled [183]*183to recover $208.20. From a judgment for $208.20 and from an order denying a new trial, this appeal was taken by defendant.

[1] Appellant assigns as error that “The court failed to find any of the material facts in the case.” While the court might properly have found on the question of smut and dockage therefor, it did in fact only fin'd the ultimate fact, upon which the judgment must rest — the total amount of the purchase price as per the terms of the contract. The assignment before us is insufficient upon which to ask a reversal, because the court did not make findings regarding smut and dockage. The finding made supports the conclusion and judgment.

[2] Appellant urges the insufficiency of the evidence to support the ultimate finding above referred to. There was evidence which, if believed by the court, would entitle 'plaintiff to recover the full amount sued for. Certainly appellant is in no position to complain if the court erred in its favor. It was incumbent upon appellant to satisfy this court that, under the evidence, plaintiff was not entitled to as large a judgment as that rendered. This it has failed to do.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

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

WHITING, J.

The plaintiff is a farmer; the defendant a corporation engaged in the purchase of grain. Plaintiff brought this action alleging that he had sold defendant a certain number of bushels of wheat, at a stated price for such as graded No. I and at another- stated price for such as graded No. 2; and further alleging that defendant had failed Lo pay some $500 of the agreed purchase price. Defendant admitted the purchase of the wheat; admitted the -number of bushels of each grade of wheat and the price to be paid for each grade — except that it alleged that it was part of the agreement that, if such wheat was subject to dockage for smut, then there should be deducted from the agreed price of each grade the sum of $.25 per bushel; and alleged that said wheat proved to be smutty .md that it had made proper deductions for smut and had paid plaintiff in full for the wheat. Trial was had to the -court without a jury. The court found that plaintiff sold the number of bushels of wheat alleged; that, by the terms of the contract entered into, plaintiff was entitled to receive a -certain named- sum; that he had received the amount confessedly paid; and that there was still due him the sum of $208.20. The court' concluded that plaintiff was entitled [183]*183to recover $208.20. From a judgment for $208.20 and from an order denying a new trial, this appeal was taken by defendant.

[1] Appellant assigns as error that “The court failed to find any of the material facts in the case.” While the court might properly have found on the question of smut and dockage therefor, it did in fact only fin'd the ultimate fact, upon which the judgment must rest — the total amount of the purchase price as per the terms of the contract. The assignment before us is insufficient upon which to ask a reversal, because the court did not make findings regarding smut and dockage. The finding made supports the conclusion and judgment.

[2] Appellant urges the insufficiency of the evidence to support the ultimate finding above referred to. There was evidence which, if believed by the court, would entitle 'plaintiff to recover the full amount sued for. Certainly appellant is in no position to complain if the court erred in its favor. It was incumbent upon appellant to satisfy this court that, under the evidence, plaintiff was not entitled to as large a judgment as that rendered. This it has failed to do.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 N.W. 727, 42 S.D. 181, 1919 S.D. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuhns-v-new-farmers-grain-co-sd-1919.