Case Name: Acme Harvesting Machine Company v. Hunckler
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1923-06-08
Citations: 80 Ind. App. 143
Docket Number: No. 11,621
Parties: Acme Harvesting Machine Company v. Hunckler.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 143–144

Head Matter:
Acme Harvesting Machine Company v. Hunckler.
[No. 11,621.
Filed June 8, 1923.]
1. New Trial.-—Verdict.—Insufficiency of Evidence.—Reversal. —Where the verdict is contrary to the uncontradicted evidence, it should be set aside as not sustained by sufficient evidence, p. 144.
2. A P P E A L.—Review.-—Finding.—Conflicting Evidence.—Conclusiveness of Verdict.—Where there is any evidence, although conflicting, which fairly tends to support the verdict, the finding of the jury is conclusive, p. 144.
From Knox Circuit Court; Thomas B. Coulter, Judge.
Action by the Acme Harvesting Machine Company against John Hunckler. From a judgment for defendant, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Shuler McCormick, for appellant.
W. A. Cullop and Harry R. Lewis, for appellee.

Opinion:
Nichols, J.
Action by appellant against appellee, in three paragraphs, the first of which was on a written agency contract; the second paragraph for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered; and the third paragraph on a written contract for the sale of goods.
Appellee filed an answer in general denial; a plea of payment, and a cross-complaint setting up the contract sued on in appellant's third paragraph of complaint, alleging a breach and praying $200 damages.
The cause was tried before a jury which returned a general verdict for appellee. After motion for a new trial which was overruled, there was a judgment on the verdict. The error assigned is the court's action in overruling the motion for a new trial, the reasons for which were that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence and that it was contrary to law. Appellant rightly contends that, where the verdict of the jury is contrary to the uncontradicted evidence, such verdict should be set aside as not sustained by sufficient evidence. Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Yung (1888), 113 Ind. 159, 15 N. E. 220, 3 Am. St. 630; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Wolford (1912), 49 Ind. App. 392, 97 N. E. 444. But it has been many times decided that, where there is any evidence which fairly tends to support the verdict, the finding of the jury concludes the question. Jeffersonville Mfg. Co. v. Holden (1913), 180 Ind. 301, 102 N. E. 21. The evidence in this case is, contradictory and confusing. The attorneys do not agree in their interpretation of it. We have examined it with care and we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Judgment affirmed.