Case ID: wis_125/html/0626-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Winslow, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wittmann, Appellant, vs. Berger, Respondent.
    
      September 14
    
    October 3, 1905.
    
    
      Appeal and, error: Findings of referee, when disturbed.
    
    
      A finding of a referee, confirmed by tbe court, not against tbe clear preponderance of tbe evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county: Laweenoe W. Halsey, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    For tbe appellant there were briefs by Turner, Pease & .'Turner, and oral argument by W. J. Turner.
    
    For tbe respondent there was a brief by Austin, Fehr & Q-ehrz, and oral argument by W. E. Austin.
    
   Winslow, J.

Tbe plaintiff brought action for an accounting, claiming tbat be bad been for a number of years a partner with tbe defendant in a manufacturing business in Milwaukee, doing business under tbe name of tbe Berger Bedding Company. Tbe defendant admitted tbat prior to Jan-nary, 1896, the plaintiff had an interest in the profits of the business, but alleged that this interest terminated by agreement at the date named, and that since that time the plaintiff had been employed by him as a traveling salesman only, and admitted that he owed the plaintiff the sum of $2,304.93 for salary and commissions earned but not drawn. The issues were referred for trial to a referee, who found the facts to be substantially as contended by the defendant; and these findings were confirmed by the court and a money judgment entered for the plaintiff for the amount due. The plaintiff appeals, and claims that the finding to the effect that the partnership or profit-sharing interest of the plaintiff was terminated in January, 1896, is contrary, to the clear preponderance of the evidence. Careful reading, of the evidence convinces us that the findings might well have been in accordance with the plaintiff’s contention. There are facts which point in that direction quite persuasively. But there certainly is testimony supporting the finding, and we find ourselves unable to say that it is against the clear preponderance of the evidence.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.