Raulf v. Chicago Fire Brick Co.

119 N.W. 646, 138 Wis. 126, 1909 Wisc. LEXIS 46
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided February 16, 1909·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Marshall, J.

It is conceded tbat if the findings of fact «tand the judgment must be. affirmed. There is no question -of law of any moment involved. Sticb questions as there are relate to the quantum of proof required to establish falsity •of an officer’s return. There is no fixed rule as to that. Evidence, reasonably, clearly satisfying the trier or triers that the return i# false, is sufficient. It is the opinion of the court that this appeal is ruled in favor of respondent by the familiar ■principle that a court’s conclusions of fact cannot be disturbed -on appeal unless found to be against the clear preponderance of the evidence. The case does not require discussion of the evidence, and it is thought best to rest with this brief opinion.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Raulf v. Chicago Fire Brick Co., 119 N.W. 646, 138 Wis. 126, 1909 Wisc. LEXIS 46 (Wis. 1909).

119 N.W. 646 (Raulf v. Chicago Fire Brick Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Fiore
69 Pa. D. & C.2d 84 (Washington County Court of Common Pleas, 1975)
Mullins v. Labahn
11 N.W.2d 519 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1943)
Nuttallburg Smokeless Fuel Co. v. First National Bank
109 S.E. 766 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1921)