Case Name: JOHN TURMES, Respondent, v. WILLIAM KISNER, Appellant
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1906-03-03
Citations: 12 Idaho 147
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN TURMES, Respondent, v. WILLIAM KISNER, Appellant.
Judges: Stockslager, C. J., and Sullivan, J., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 147–148

Head Matter:
(March 3, 1906.)
JOHN TURMES, Respondent, v. WILLIAM KISNER, Appellant.
[85 Pac. 212.]
Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Findings and Judgment.
1. Evidence in this casé examined and considered and held sufficient to support the findings and judgment.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District for Canyon County. Hon. George H. Stewart, Judge.
Action by plaintiff for an accounting of the business, effects and transactions of a partnership, and to recover amount due from a copartner. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant’s motion for a new trial denied, whereupon he appealed from the judgment and from the order denying his motion.
Affirmed.
Frank Estabrook and Hawley, Puckett & Hawley, for Ap-' pellant, cite no authorities.
E. M. Wolfe and Richard Cunningham, for Respondent, cite no authorities,

Opinion:
AILSHIE, J.
This action was commenced by the plaintiff to secure an accounting and settlement of a partnership business carried on between plaintiff and defendant for a period of fifteen days. The court heard the proofs and found therefrom the amount of business transacted by the firm, the amount of property and cash contributed by each" member to the partnership business and the amount received by each from the firm. The conclusion of the court's finding is that there is due from defendant to plaintiff the sum of $360.44, and the court thereupon entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for that sum, together with costs. The appeal is from the judgment and order denying a new trial.
Appellant complains of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and judgment. Our examination of the evidence convinces us that there is such a substantial conflict in the material facts as to bring this case within the uniform rule of this court that where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence the judgment will not be disturbed. A statement of the evidence in this ease can serve no useful purpose, and we will not therefore recite any of it here.
We find no error in the rulings of the court in the admission of evidence. Judgment affirmed, and costs awarded to respondent.
Stockslager, C. J., and Sullivan, J., concur.