Case ID: ind-app_82/html/0490-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nichols, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amos v. Daggett et al.
    [No. 12,070.
    Filed February 19, 1925.]
    
      Appeal.—Appellate tribunal will not. weigh conflicting, evidence, and where there is some evidence to support judgment, it will be affirmed.—An appellate tribunal will not weigh the evidence, and where on a conflict, there is some evidence to sustain the claim of the judgment plaintiff, the judgment will be affirmed.
    From Howard Circuit Court; John Marshall, Judge.
    Actions by Charles Daggett and Clarence Daggett against Steve J. Amos and Fred Goodnight, which were consolidated. From judgments for plaintiffs, the defendant Amos appeals.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      
      Joseph P. Herron, for appellants.
    
      Homer R. Miller and Rex E. Ballenger, for appellees.
   Nichols, J.

Appellant purchased hogs of appellee Clarence Daggett of the value of $347.48 and of appellee Charles Daggett of the value of $421.24 giving checks respectively for said sums, signed: “Fred Goodnight (Printed), By S. J. Amos (Signed).”

These checks proved to be absolutely worthless and each of the appellees brought suit against appellant and Goodnight for the value of his hogs. The actions were consolidated, and there was a trial by the court with finding and judgment in favor of each of the appellees. The only error assigned is the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for new trial, which presents the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision of the court. Appellant contends that he was only the agent of a disclosed principal, and, as such, was not liable, while appellee contends that Goodnight and appellant were partners. There is some evidence to sustain appellee’s contention and, under such circumstances, this court does not weigh it.

Affirmed.