The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-12-04

bette entered into two contracts with
the City of Evansville. one for
So. lS2 90. the other for S2,344 90. to
grade, pave, and macadamize Main
Street of said city for a certain speci-
fed space, and that to secure the per-
Torrance Of said contract, he made
two different bonds to the city, with
Kramer and Ehrman for his sure
ties. That said contracts were after
wards assigned to Ehrman, with the
knowledge and consent of Kramer,
and also of the city, who accepted and
ratified the assignment onsthe 10th of
November. 1860. That soon after
said contract was made and the work
begun by 1ibbetts. Ehrman and Kra-
mer learning that lib belts had neither
the capital nor the energy to carry on
the work, to save themselves from
loss agreed that Ehrman should be-
come nominal contractor for said
work and Kramer surety, and that
they together would finish the same
with their joint labor aud means and
share profit and loss equally. That
this arrangement was consummated
and bonds to the city duly executed
recognizing Ehrman as contractor
and Kramer as surety, Tibbetts hav-
ing been discharged. That the first
contract was nearly completed and
some work done on the second con-
tract under this arrangement, and
that on the 10Th day Of
April, 1861, the work was. by
consent or all parties, assigned to
John I'll Jfey. Kramer going security
to the city on Hoffpy's bond. That In
pursuance to that agreement between
plaintiff and defendant, Ehrman
undertook the personal overs ght
of the work, and that each ad-
vaneed divers sums Of money and
other things necessary to carry
on the work, and they each re-
ceived part Of the proceeds of the
work. That Kramer received more
than his share of the money and ex-
pended Tess than his share on the
work. That Ehrman expended more
than his share and received less than
was his due, etc.
Second-A general denial
Third-A general plea of payment.
The plaintiff plead reply in deny
Of the allega tions OF the answer The
trial resulted in finding for the APP
pelles of 1920.
Motion for a new trial, assigning
three reasons: Flrst-that the YER
dict was not sustained by the evil
dence. Second-that it is contrary to
law. Third--the refusal of the Judge
to admit certain evidence offered by
the defendant.
Motion overruled, and Judgment
rendered on the verdict and excep-
tons of the defendant.
Appellant assigned further causes
of error. 1st. That the Judgment is
for a larger amount than was proved
by the evidence of the appellee. 81.
The ruling cut of a receipt for $3.50
offered in evidence by defendant. Sd.
The refusal Of the Court TO grant a
new trial. 4th. The verdict is not
sustained by the evidence.
The motion for new trial does not
present the questions which the ap-
pellant has stated in his first assign
meDt of error.
The issue between the parties was
whether partnership existed between
them, or whether Kramer was simply
a surety, and, as such, advancing
money TO enable Ehrn1nn to comply
with his contract. The receipt offered
IN evidence could not in any way en-
able the jury to determine this issue.
The evidence offered does not go to
show that Kramer had any knowledge
of the receipt from Hoffey to Ehrman
q Kramer for %18o. - 1t was not "a ken
by him, nor does it appear to have
ever been in his possession.
From the evidence this Court can
not disturb the finding of the Court
below, on the ground that il was con-
trary to the evidence. Judgment af-
firmed with costs.