Case Name: Daniels, Appellant, vs. Smith, Administrator, Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1897-04-07
Citations: 95 Wis. 639
Docket Number: 
Parties: Daniels, Appellant, vs. Smith, Administrator, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
Daniels, Appellant, vs. Smith, Administrator, Respondent.
March 22
April 7, 1897.
Appeal: Finding sustained.
Upon appeal from a judgment of the circuit court disallowing claims against an estate, if the findings of the court are fairly supported by the evidence such judgment will be affirmed where, though the evidence on the part of the claimant is not specifically contradicted by any witness, it is rendered inherently improbable by other evidence.
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Marathon county: Chas. Y. Baedeen, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
Eor the appellant there was a brief by John Livermore, attorney, and Bump, Kreutz&r dfc Rosenberry and 0. F. Fl-dred, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. Eldred.
For the respondent there were separate briefs by Brown da Pradt, attorneys, and Silverthorn, Hurley. Ryan & Jones, of counsel, and oral argument by Neal Brown.

Opinion:
Winslow, J.
The appellant filed two claims against the estate of his deceased brother, Morgan G. Daniels, one for $10,271.21, claimed to be due upon an account .stated, and one for $600.61, claimed to be due upon open account. Upon trial in the county court, the first claim was disallowed, and, on the second, $480.16 was allowed. Upon appeal to the circuit court, the action was tried by the court, and findings were made to the effect that neither claim was proven to be just, and both were disallowed.
The appellant claims that these findings are against the clear preponderance of the evidence. We have examined the evidence and the opinion of the trial judge, and we think the evidence fairly supports the findings. While it is true that there is evidence on the part of the claimant which is not specifically contradicted by any witness, it is also true that there are many facts in evidence rendering the evidence of these witnesses inherently improbable and incredible. Such facts may undoubtedly be controlling, even in the absence of specific denial or contradiction. They were so regarded by the trial judge in the case, and apparently with .good reason.
By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.