Schwin v. Hellriegel

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Schwin v. Hellriegel

60 N.W. 792, 88 Wis. 457, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 87

DecidedOctober 23, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 60 N.W. 792 (Schwin v. Hellriegel) 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

Schwin v. Hellriegel, 60 N.W. 792, 88 Wis. 457, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 87 (Wis. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, ,T.

This action is for money had and received. The plaintiffs owned an undivided one-half of a threshing machine, and the defendant owned the remaining undivided half thereof. The defendant sold and delivered the entire machine to a third person for $55, and received the money. This action is brought to recover one half of this sum. The defendant admits the sale and receipt of the consideration, but counterclaims for $160 damages, because he claims that the plaintiffs had exclusive possession of the [458]*458machine for several years before the sale by him, and negligently housed it, so that it became rotten and nearly worthless. It is very doubtful whether there was any testimony which substantiated the defendant’s counterclaim, ■but, conceding that there was such testimony, there was also ample evidence to the contrary. PTo exception was taken to the charge of the court, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, upon which judgment was rendered. Under these circumstances, this court cannot interfere with the judgment.

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

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

Winslow, ,T.

This action is for money had and received. The plaintiffs owned an undivided one-half of a threshing machine, and the defendant owned the remaining undivided half thereof. The defendant sold and delivered the entire machine to a third person for $55, and received the money. This action is brought to recover one half of this sum. The defendant admits the sale and receipt of the consideration, but counterclaims for $160 damages, because he claims that the plaintiffs had exclusive possession of the [458]*458machine for several years before the sale by him, and negligently housed it, so that it became rotten and nearly worthless. It is very doubtful whether there was any testimony which substantiated the defendant’s counterclaim, ■but, conceding that there was such testimony, there was also ample evidence to the contrary. PTo exception was taken to the charge of the court, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, upon which judgment was rendered. Under these circumstances, this court cannot interfere with the judgment.

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 N.W. 792, 88 Wis. 457, 1894 Wisc. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwin-v-hellriegel-wis-1894.