Maytag v. Vaughn & Sons

17 N.W. 34, 61 Iowa 757
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided October 17, 1883·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Servers, J.

— The property in controversy consists of certain corn planters. Several errors are assigned, but they simply amount to this, that the court erred in finding for the defendants. •

The defendants claim the goods were furnished to them by the manufacturers, under a contract that if not sold in 1882 they were, to be carried over until 1883, and then sold and accounted for. The evidence is largely in writing. We have each separately examined the evidence, and separately reached the conclusion that the circuit court correctly determined the facts, and therefore the judgment is correct. No possible benefit to any one could accrue by setting out the evidence and stating our reasons at length.

Affirmed. .

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

Maytag v. Vaughn & Sons, 17 N.W. 34, 61 Iowa 757 (iowa 1883).

17 N.W. 34 (Maytag v. Vaughn & Sons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miller v. Bourne
1953 OK 122 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1953)
Schnathorst v. Williams
36 N.W.2d 739 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1949)
Feldman v. North British & Mercantile Ins.
137 F.2d 266 (Fourth Circuit, 1943)
Richmond v. Whitaker
255 N.W. 681 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1934)
Davis v. Stephens
164 S.E. 111 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Sirmans v. Peterson
157 S.E. 341 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Fusario v. Cavallaro
142 A. 391 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1928)
Allison v. Bryan
1915 OK 339 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Johnson v. Miller
61 N.W. 422 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1894)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. Watson
37 Kan. 773 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1887)
Taylor v. Rice
27 F. 264 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, 1886)