Court Opinion

ID: 9789443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:36:27.48676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:22.477944
License: Public Domain

*563Lockett, J.,
concurring and dissenting: The majority correctly determined all issues except when they found that the agreement between the plaintiff and Krause had been terminated by the actions of the parties. Whether or not the agreement had been terminated by the parties’ actions is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. The trial judge’s action of directing a verdict for another reason kept the jury from reaching that question. Determination of the facts is a function for the jury, not an appellate court. The majority’s action deprives the plaintiff of his constitutional right to a jury trial. The plaintiff should be granted a new trial on that issue.
Herd, J., joins in the foregoing concurring and dissenting opinion.