Ripon Hardware Co. v. Haas

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Ripon Hardware Co. v. Haas

158 N.W. 330, 163 Wis. 592, 1916 Wisc. LEXIS 309

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJune 13, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 158 N.W. 330 (Ripon Hardware Co. v. Haas) 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

Ripon Hardware Co. v. Haas, 158 N.W. 330, 163 Wis. 592, 1916 Wisc. LEXIS 309 (Wis. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

RoseNberry, J.

The only question presented is whether or not the evidence sustains the findings of the trial court. We have carefully examined the evidence and we think the findings are in accordance with the great preponderance thereof. Counsel for plaintiff contend that because the court found as a fact that the conveyances sought to be set aside were made by .the deceased, John Haas, “solely in pursuance of an idea of his to retire from business” and “provide for the disposition of his estate during his life,” all the conveyances were made pursuant to a plan or scheme; that the last conveyance, as they claim, left him practically insolvent and was therefore fraudulent, and that in consequence all the transactions made pursuant to the plan were fraudulent, including those sought to be set aside.

The conclusion reached by counsel is an inference of fact from the evidence. The trial court made an opposite deduction or inference from the evidence. Inferences drawn from the evidence by the trial court will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. Will of Mitchell, 157 Wis. 327, 147 N. W. 332; Spuhr v. Kolb, 111 Wis. 119, 86 N. W. 562. In this respect there is no difference between inferences and facts, if indeed there is a substantial difference in any respect. 1 Wigmore, Ev. § 30 et seq.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

RoseNberry, J.

The only question presented is whether or not the evidence sustains the findings of the trial court. We have carefully examined the evidence and we think the findings are in accordance with the great preponderance thereof. Counsel for plaintiff contend that because the court found as a fact that the conveyances sought to be set aside were made by .the deceased, John Haas, “solely in pursuance of an idea of his to retire from business” and “provide for the disposition of his estate during his life,” all the conveyances were made pursuant to a plan or scheme; that the last conveyance, as they claim, left him practically insolvent and was therefore fraudulent, and that in consequence all the transactions made pursuant to the plan were fraudulent, including those sought to be set aside.

The conclusion reached by counsel is an inference of fact from the evidence. The trial court made an opposite deduction or inference from the evidence. Inferences drawn from the evidence by the trial court will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. Will of Mitchell, 157 Wis. 327, 147 N. W. 332; Spuhr v. Kolb, 111 Wis. 119, 86 N. W. 562. In this respect there is no difference between inferences and facts, if indeed there is a substantial difference in any respect. 1 Wigmore, Ev. § 30 et seq.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 N.W. 330, 163 Wis. 592, 1916 Wisc. LEXIS 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ripon-hardware-co-v-haas-wis-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack