Case Title: Funke v. Holland Furnace Company

Citation: 102 N.W.2d 668

Docket Number: 

State: south-dakota

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1960-05-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
102 N.W.2d 668 (1960) Joe FUNKE and Mrs. Joe Funke, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. HOLLAND FURNACE COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant and Appellant. No. 9810. Supreme Court of South Dakota. May 3, 1960. Henry C. Mundt, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant. Kirby, McDonnell & Kirby, Gene McDonnell, Sioux Falls, for plaintiffs and respondents. HANSON, Judge. The Holland Furnace Company sold a new furnace to Mr. and Mrs. Joe Funke, an elderly couple living at Rowena, South Dakota. The furnace was not satisfactory and failed to heat the Funke home. This action to rescind the sale and recover the purchase price of the furnace upon grounds of fraud and breach of warranty followed. The trial court found fraud in the inducement of the contract and entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $923. Defendant appeals. The trial court made and entered the following findings of fact: Although fraud is never presumed it may be proved otherwise than by direct and positive evidence. Like other issues of fact it may be established by inference arising from all the other facts and circumstances in evidence. Breneman v. Aune, 73 S.D. 478, 44 N.W.2d 219. The plaintiffs sustained the burden of proving fraud to the satisfaction of the trial judge. Because of conflicting evidence in this regard the credibility of the witnesses becomes an important factor. It is well settled that "where credibility of witnesses enters into the findings they will not be disturbed unless the evidence clearly preponderates against them." Crawford v. Carter, 74 S.D. 316, 52 N.W.2d 302, 306. Reviewing the evidence in this case, as we are obligated to do, in a light most favorable to plaintiffs we are unable to find the same clearly preponderates against the findings of the court. Because the finding of fraud vitiates the contract of sale it becomes unnecessary to consider appellant's assignments of error with reference to breach of warranties and sufficiency of notice of defects thereunder. Affirmed. All the Judges concur. SMITH, J., not participating.