Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

118 Wis. 359

Baushka v. McKey

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 1903

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1903-06-18

court for Grant county: Geo. ClekeNtsoN, Circuit Judge. This action was brought to recover the sum of $350 claimed to be due on contract. Plaintiff alleges that he contracted to drill a well for defendant. This well, to be operated by a farm windmill, was to furnish a sufficient water supply for defendant’s farm and stock. Defendant admits the making of the agreement, but asserts that plaintiff wholly failed to comply with its terms. The case was tried before a jury.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1967

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1903-06-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Siebecker, J.

¶1The first error assigned pertains to rulings of the court in receiving and rejecting evidence. We find no record of the action of the court coining within this alleged *361error to inform us what actually took place on the trial, nor are there any exceptions in the bill to any rulings. We cannot, therefore, consider this assignment of error.

¶2Error is assigned on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. An examination of the record discloses evidence tending to establish an agreement between the parties for drilling a well on defendant’s premises, that the well should have a water supply sufficient to furnish defendant water for his farm and stock purposes, as the farm was then conducted, and that the sufficiency of the well was to be tested by a farm windmill. It furthermore appears that plaintiff,' under the arrangement, drilled a well upon defendant’s premises, which was tested by himself in the presence of others, showing, in the opinion of the witnesses, a sufficient water supply to meet the agreed requirement, and that defendant refused to erect a windmill to test its capacity. Other evidence in the case was in conflict with this evidence, thus raising an issue of fact which was submitted to the jury. The jury found that plaintiff had fully performed, the contract, and awarded him the amount due. An examination of the record shows that the jury were justified by the evidence in finding, either that the plaintiff fully performed, or that he had failed to perform, the terms of the contract. This question was determined by the weight and credibility they gave to the testimony of the different parties and witnesses. An examination of this testimony makes it very plain that the verdict is not only not against the clear preponderance of the evidence, but that it is well supported by the testimony. From these conclusions it necessarily follows that the case was properly submitted to the jury for a decision. The'verdict of the jury must be sustained.

¶3By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

/118/wis/359 · .json · Public domain