Case ID: kan_83/html/0803-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Cwñam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. P. Elder et al., as Partners, etc., Appellants, v. Paul Kesting, Appellee.
    
    No. 16,660.
    Appeal from Franklin district court.
    Opinion filed July 9, 1910.
    Affirmed.
    
      W. H. Clark, and F. M. Harris, for the appellants.
    
      F. A. Waddle, for the appellee.
   Per Cwñam:

The only contention in this case is that the verdict and judgment rendered are contrary to the unccntroverted testimony in the case; in other words, that there is no conflict in the evidence. We have read the evidence, and find that there is a sharp conflict as to the representations made which induced the giving of the orders for the goods in question. The appellants claim that there is no conflict in the evidence — that is, of evidence legally admissible, the order for the goods being in writing. We can not sustain this view, and the judgment is therefore aifirmed.