Court Opinion

ID: 9571201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:29:46.614249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:21.175410
License: Public Domain

HANSON, Judge
(dissenting).
There is a single simple issue involved in this action. Plaintiff claims defendant owes $709.98 balance on an account. Defendant contends the account has been fully paid. The resolution of this issue is entirely a matter of evidentiary credibility.
The agreement between the parties was not reduced to writing and is not free from uncertainty and ambiguity. Consequently, oral testimony was necessary to explain the transaction. The trial court observed the witnesses and heard their testimony. He determined the credibility, weight, and value of such evidence. We are bound by it.
*521An independent appraisal of the evidence in a light most unfavorable to the judgment and to the prevailing party must be made in order to reverse. This is not our prerogative on review.
The undisputed evidence shows that after the ten bunk cattle feeders were completed defendant came to Madison to pick them up on July 26, 1967. The ten units were accepted by defendant and loaded on his truck. '•Defenutant issued and delivered his check to plaintiff in the amount of $2,500. As a result of the conversations that day an invoice was prepared by plaintiff showing the total account between the parties to be $3,209.98. This reflected the cost of the ten manufactured units at $320 each and a $9.98 balance on an earlier account. The $2,500 was shown as a credit leaving a balance due of $709.98. The invoice was then signed by defendant. Obviously, the trial court believed such evidence and found the sum of $709.98 still due and owing from plaintiff to defendant.
Just as obviously the trial court disbelieved defendant’s testimony that the $2,500 check was in full payment and satisfaction of the account. Defendant claimed the price of the manufactured units was to be $252.14 each according to a preliminary cost estimate, marked Exhibit 7. If so, defendant should have given plaintiff a check for $2,521.40 plus $9.98 at the time he took delivery of the units in order to constitute full payment according to his own calculations. To correct this oversight defendant later sent plaintiff a check for the difference between the $2,500 credit and the amount he claimed the units should have been. This check was refused and returned by plaintiff. Such conduct does not square with defendant’s contention that the $2,500 check was in full payment and satisfaction of the account.
In making payment on the account defendant used a form check which had printed thereon in small letters “Endorsement of payee will constitute a receipt in full when check is paid”. The trial court did not consider this a significant evidentiary factor. We should also keep it in perspective and not assign it overriding importance in view of all *522the other facts and circumstances in the case pointing to a contrary conclusion.
The findings and conclusions are sufficient. Defendant apparently knows what the trial court found and concluded. No objection was made or exception taken as to their form or sufficiency. Under the circumstances, if deemed insufficient by the majority, the case should be remitted for the entry of proper findings and conclusions. The lack of an express finding as to payment should not be made a predicate for reversal.
I would affirm.
WOLLMAN, J., concurs in this dissent.