Piening v. Endress

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Piening v. Endress

70 N.W. 157, 95 Wis. 242, 1897 Wisc. LEXIS 174

DecidedFebruary 2, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 70 N.W. 157 (Piening v. Endress) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Piening v. Endress, 70 N.W. 157, 95 Wis. 242, 1897 Wisc. LEXIS 174 (Wis. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, J.

The questions in this case were purely questions of fact, or of inferences to be drawn from facts. If the transactions between O. W. Endress & Sons and the bank (acting through its assistant cashier, A. J. Endress), on the 9th or 11th of April, 1892, by which the notes were transferred and delivered to Endress & Sons, and their check received in payment therefor, were conducted in good faith on their part, without knowledge of the insolvent condition of the bank, or of any fraudulent intent on the part of its officials, and without notice of any fact which should have put them on inquiry, then the transaction must be sustained. There was sufficient evidence to sustain such findings, and the trial judge believed the evidence, and so found. It is true that many facts appeared which tended to throw grave suspicion about the transaction, and, had the findings [246]*246been that the transfer was fraudulent, we probably should have been entirely satisfied with them. But it cannot be said that the findings are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence; hence we cannot disturb them.

By the Gowt.— Judgment affirmed.

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

Winslow, J.

The questions in this case were purely questions of fact, or of inferences to be drawn from facts. If the transactions between O. W. Endress & Sons and the bank (acting through its assistant cashier, A. J. Endress), on the 9th or 11th of April, 1892, by which the notes were transferred and delivered to Endress & Sons, and their check received in payment therefor, were conducted in good faith on their part, without knowledge of the insolvent condition of the bank, or of any fraudulent intent on the part of its officials, and without notice of any fact which should have put them on inquiry, then the transaction must be sustained. There was sufficient evidence to sustain such findings, and the trial judge believed the evidence, and so found. It is true that many facts appeared which tended to throw grave suspicion about the transaction, and, had the findings [246]*246been that the transfer was fraudulent, we probably should have been entirely satisfied with them. But it cannot be said that the findings are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence; hence we cannot disturb them.

By the Gowt.— Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 N.W. 157, 95 Wis. 242, 1897 Wisc. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piening-v-endress-wis-1897.