Case ID: wis_95/html/0377-01.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

Magee, Respondent, vs. The Mississippi River Logging Company, Appellant.
    
      February 5
    
    February 23, 1897.
    
    
      Appeal on questions of fact.
    
    Where the questions raised on appeal are purely questions of fact, and there is evidence to sustain the findings of the court and no preponderance of evidence against them, the judgment will be affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Pepin county: E. B. Bundy, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
    For the appellant there was a brief by Jenkins & Jenkins, and oral argument by W. W. Jenkins.
    
    For the respondent there was a brief by C. M. Hilliard and 8. O. Oilman, and oral argument by 8. O. Oilman.
    
   Winslow, J.

The questions raised on this appeal are purely questions of fact. The plaintiff claims a balance of about $700 due him from the defendant upon a logging contract. It appeared that the plaintiff and one Gilmore had made a joint contract for logging certain lands with. Laird, Norton & Co. several years before the contract in suit, and that the contract was made on behalf of Laird, Norton & Co. by the defendant, and all accounts were kept on the defendant’s books, and payments made by defendant. After making this previous contract, plaintiff and Gilmore separated their interests under it, and each logged separate parts of the lands covered by the contract. On this contract Gilmore quit work $700 in debt to Laird, Norton & Co., and the defendant claims that the plaintiff is liable for this amount as Gilmore’s partner, and also that Magee agreed that he would pay Gilmore’s deficit in consideration of an increase of fifty cents per thousand in his pay. Magee denies these claims, and alleges that he and Gilmore completely-separated their interests, with the consent of the defendant, and practically made separate and distinct contracts, and that he never agreed to pay Gilmore’s shortage.

These were questions of fact, and the court (jury being "waived) made findings in accordance with the plaintiff’s contention. There was evidence on which to base these findings, and it cannot be said that the preponderance of ■evidence was clearly against them.

By the Cowrt. — ■ Judgment affirmed.