Wilson v. Walls

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Wilson v. Walls

317 S.W.2d 472

DecidedOctober 18, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 317 S.W.2d 472 (Wilson v. Walls) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson v. Walls, 317 S.W.2d 472 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Bourbon Circuit Court, Hon. Marion Rider, Special Judge, awarding appellee damages in the sum of $1,940 for appellants’ breach of an oral contract to correct defects in a hay baler appellee purchased from appellants.

It is argued by appellants that the court erred in: 1. overruling their motion for

a directed verdict; 2. permitting appel-'lee under CR 15.02 to amend his complaint after judgment to conform to his proof; 3. instructing the jury; 4. refusing to allow appellants to introduce evidence as to custom in the farm implement industry; 5. that the proof of damages was too speculative to permit recovery.

After reading the record and the briefs and examining the authorities cited there- . in, we have reached the conclusion there is no merit in any of appellants’ contentions, therefore the motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Bourbon Circuit Court, Hon. Marion Rider, Special Judge, awarding appellee damages in the sum of $1,940 for appellants’ breach of an oral contract to correct defects in a hay baler appellee purchased from appellants.

It is argued by appellants that the court erred in: 1. overruling their motion for

a directed verdict; 2. permitting appel-'lee under CR 15.02 to amend his complaint after judgment to conform to his proof; 3. instructing the jury; 4. refusing to allow appellants to introduce evidence as to custom in the farm implement industry; 5. that the proof of damages was too speculative to permit recovery.

After reading the record and the briefs and examining the authorities cited there- . in, we have reached the conclusion there is no merit in any of appellants’ contentions, therefore the motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 S.W.2d 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-walls-kyctapp-1957.