Walsh Mercantile Co. v. Fullam

43 Kan. 181
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 Kan. 181 (Walsh Mercantile Co. v. Fullam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Walsh Mercantile Co. v. Fullam, 43 Kan. 181 (kan 1890).

Opinion

Opinion by

Holt, C.:

The plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, recovered a judgment in the Leavenworth district court, at the September term, 1887, for $68.25, against John Fullam; and Ellen Fullam recovered against plaintiff a judgment for costs. The plaintiff complains of the judgment in favor of Ellen Fullam, claiming there should have been a judgment against both John Fullam and Ellen Fullam, as they were partners in the business of selling liquors in Leavenworth. The agent of the plaintiff claims that the liquors for which this action was brought were sold to both parties. This is denied by both defendants and their daughter, and the written order for wines and liquors offered in evidence by plaintiff was signed by John Fullam alone. Upon this conflicting and contradictory testimony the jury found in favor of the defendant, Ellen Fullam.

From a careful examination of the record we are inclined to think that the verdict was supported by a preponderance of evidence. In any event, under the well-established rule of this court, we shall not disturb the judgment based upon this verdict, there being substantial evidence to sustain it.

Another complaint of the plaintiff is, that the court erred [182]*182in its instructions to the jury concerning a certain order for $16.25 for wines and liquors, given by John Fullam, at Leavenworth,'Kansas, to the agent, and by him forwarded to plaintiff at St. Joseph, Missouri. We are precluded from examining this alleged error, for the reason that neither the refusal to give the instruction asked nor the giving of the instruction submitted was excepted to by the plaintiff. (Gafford v. Hall, 39 Kas. 166.)

These are the only errors complained of. We recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Kansas Farmers' Fire Insurance v. Hawley
46 Kan. 746 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1891)
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Johnson
44 Kan. 660 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 Kan. 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-mercantile-co-v-fullam-kan-1890.