Case ID: wis_151/html/0103-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Marshall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vote-Berger Company, Appellant, vs. Carter-Wabeno Telephone Company, Respondent.
    
      October 10
    
    October 29, 1912.
    
    
      Bills and notes: Payment: Findings of fact: Evidence.
    
    A finding by the trial court that a promissory note, -which had been returned to the maker marked “paid,” had in fact been paid, is held to he sustained by the evidence.
    Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Eorest county: John Goodland, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Action to recover on a promissory note which, by inadvertence, as alleged, had been canceled and returned to the maker as paid, contrary to the facts. The defendant, by ‘answer, insisted that the note was duly paid and canceled according to a memorandum thereon.
    The evidence was to the effect that the note was given by •defendant December 1, 1908, and returned to the maker March 12, 1909. The memorandum on the paper was as follows: “Paid. Vote-Berger Company by C. S. Boley.” Mr. Boley was the bookkeeper, cashier, and auditor for plaintiff and possessed authority to receive payment on the note and cancel it. He returned it by mail, with a letter calling attention thereto, as canceled. There was conflicting testimony, independent of the circumstances aforesaid, respecting payment of the note.
    The trial was by the court and resulted in findings in favor of defendant. Judgment was rendered accordingly.
    The' cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of Mills Tourtellotte and ~W. A. Wescott, and for the respondent on that of John F. Hooper.
    
   Marshall, J.

The sole complaint by appellant is that the findings are not warranted by the evidence. The case is pre-seated in anticipation of tbis court carefully weighing such evidence and noting, efficiently, preponderating weight without regard to the persuasive effect of the trial opinion. This court has no very nicely balanced scale with which to weigh evidence. Such are afforded only in trial jurisdictions. It follows that great weight in favor of findings of fact made there must be accorded thereto and reasonable doubts resolved in favor thereof. Unless the evidence so strongly preponderates against the same as to indicate, clearly, that they are wrong notwithstanding the presumption in their favor, they cannot be disturbed. Tested thereby, we are constrained to hold that the findings here give the correct state of the case.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.