Case ID: kan_93/html/0092-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "West, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 19,016.
    U. G. Charles, Appellant, v. Asa M. Black, Appellee.
    SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
    Question op Fact — Conflicting Evidence — Findings of Court Conclusive. The sole question presented by the appeal being one of fact and some evidence being found to support the conclusion of the trial court, such conclusion, under the well-established rule, must stand.
    Appeal from Sumner district court; CARROL L. Swartz, judge.
    Opinion filed October 10, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    
      W. M. Ready, J. M. Ready,- and J. W. Ready, all of Wellington, for the appellant. >
    
      W. W. Schwinn, of Wellington, for the appellee.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

West, J.:

The plaintiff sued in justice court to recover a balance of $180 for plans and specifications for a dwelling house for the defendant, alleging that the cost of the dwelling was to be about $6500. He recovered and the defendant appealed to the district court, where a jury was waived, and a trial resulted in a j udgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals.

It is undisputed that the parties contracted for certain plans and specifications to be made by the plaintiff, who is an architect, and that a certain payment was made, but the defendant’s contention is that it was expressly agreed that the plans and specifications were to be for a house which would not cost more than $5000 while those furnished called for a house costing about $6500, and were therefore of no use to him and not the kind he agreed to pay for. The entire testimony is brought up and we have examined it, and without indicating what our own verdict might be were we sitting as triers of fact we are unable to say that the conclusion reached below was unsupported by the evidence. No fault is found with the trial court’s view of the law that one who holds himself out as an architect thereby justifies his client in assuming that he can furnish plans and specifications for a building to cost about a given amount. The only point raised by the appeal is that the judgment is contrary to and unsupported by the evidence, and as already indicated we can not set aside the conclusion reached by the trial court.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.