Russell Timber Co. v. Kenfield-Lamoreaux Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Russell Timber Co. v. Kenfield-Lamoreaux Co.

161 N.W. 358, 165 Wis. 136, 1917 Wisc. LEXIS 50

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 13, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 N.W. 358 (Russell Timber Co. v. Kenfield-Lamoreaux Co.) 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

Russell Timber Co. v. Kenfield-Lamoreaux Co., 161 N.W. 358, 165 Wis. 136, 1917 Wisc. LEXIS 50 (Wis. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Rosenberry, J.

The main contention of the appellant is that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict to the effect that none of the timber converted was the property of the plaintiff, and that the undisputed testimony establishes the identity of the timber in question, and that judgment should have gone in favor of the plaintiff for its value.

The consideration and determination of this question involve wholly matters of fact. In order to make an intelligible presentation of the evidence a very long and complicated statement of the facts would be necessary. In view of the fact that the conclusion we have reached will result in a final determination of the case, such a statement could be of interest only to the parties immediately concerned and their attorneys and would he of no value in any other case. Therefore we will only say that we have carefully examined the voluminous record and we are agreed that the evidence presented a jury question which was determined adversely to the plaintiff, and we cannot say that the trial court was clearly wrong in not setting aside the verdict of the jury.

Appellant very strenuously insists that its rights were prejudiced by the introduction of certain evidence relating [138]*138to salvage and certain remarks o;f the trial court with respect thereto. We have also carefully considered this assignment ' of error, and, while the evidence referred to was immaterial and not properly in the case, it could in no way have prejudi-cially affected the determination of the jury to the effect that the property in question was not that of the plaintiff. When the jury found that it was not plaintiff’s property, all questions relating to abandonment, salvage, and other claims and counterclaims of like character dropped out of the case, and it does not appear that the result would have been different had the evidence complained of been excluded. After a thorough examination of the evidence we are of the opinion that a finding either way could have been sustained. It being a pure question of fact, the finding of the jury cannot and should not be disturbed.

By the Oourt. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Rosenberry, J.

The main contention of the appellant is that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict to the effect that none of the timber converted was the property of the plaintiff, and that the undisputed testimony establishes the identity of the timber in question, and that judgment should have gone in favor of the plaintiff for its value.

The consideration and determination of this question involve wholly matters of fact. In order to make an intelligible presentation of the evidence a very long and complicated statement of the facts would be necessary. In view of the fact that the conclusion we have reached will result in a final determination of the case, such a statement could be of interest only to the parties immediately concerned and their attorneys and would he of no value in any other case. Therefore we will only say that we have carefully examined the voluminous record and we are agreed that the evidence presented a jury question which was determined adversely to the plaintiff, and we cannot say that the trial court was clearly wrong in not setting aside the verdict of the jury.

Appellant very strenuously insists that its rights were prejudiced by the introduction of certain evidence relating [138]*138to salvage and certain remarks o;f the trial court with respect thereto. We have also carefully considered this assignment ' of error, and, while the evidence referred to was immaterial and not properly in the case, it could in no way have prejudi-cially affected the determination of the jury to the effect that the property in question was not that of the plaintiff. When the jury found that it was not plaintiff’s property, all questions relating to abandonment, salvage, and other claims and counterclaims of like character dropped out of the case, and it does not appear that the result would have been different had the evidence complained of been excluded. After a thorough examination of the evidence we are of the opinion that a finding either way could have been sustained. It being a pure question of fact, the finding of the jury cannot and should not be disturbed.

By the Oourt. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 N.W. 358, 165 Wis. 136, 1917 Wisc. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-timber-co-v-kenfield-lamoreaux-co-wis-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack