Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

40 Kan. 756

Juneau v. Stunkle

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 15, 1889

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1889-01-15

Error from Sumner District Court. ActioN by Juneau against Stunkle, to recover $192.27 alleged to be due on a bill of lumber and building material sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant in his answer pleaded payment, and also a counterclaim for $100, alleged to be an overpayment. Trial at the November term, 1885, and verdict for the defendant for $90.16. New trial denied, and judgment on the verdict for the defendant.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2013

5 state decisions

2018891890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion by

ClogstoN, C.:

¶2The record presents substantially but one question, and that question has been decided by this court so many times that it ought to receive no serious consideration by this court. The allegation of error is that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the weight of evidence. The record shows ample evidence to support the verdict, and where it does so it is conclusive upon this court.

¶3Plaintiff however contends that the court erred in permitting defendant to offer evidence in contradiction of the written memorandum offered in evidence by the plaintiff. In this there was no error. Defendant had denied this written contract, and his answer was verified.

¶4Plaintiff also assigns as error that the court permitted defendant to offer evidence to show that he had made an overpayment on the bill of lumber purchased, and insists that such payment was vpluntary and falls within the rule laid down in Commissioners v. Walker, 8 Kas. 431; Rly. Co. v. Wyandotte Co., 16 id. 587; Comm’rs of Lyon Co. v. Goddard, 22 id. 399. The difference which plaintiff fails to discover between this case and the ones cited is, that the defendant showed that at the time of making the payments there was some controversy about the amount due, and it was agreed between himself and the plaintiff that if it was finally discovered that the amount claimed by the plaintiff exceeded the amount of the plaintiff’s claim at final settlement, plaintiff was to repay the defendant such excess. This agreement brings the case entirely without the rule laid down by this court and referred to above.

¶5A third error alleged is, that the court erred in permitting *758defendant to give in evidence the original petition of the plaintiff with the exhibits attached. The record is not very clear as to whether or not the original petition was read in evidence, but it does show that the exhibits attached thereto were read, and it further appears that the agent and book-keeper of the plaintiff testified when on the witness stand on cross-examination that the exhibits so attached to the plaintiff’s petition were correct, and were copies of their book accounts. No harm was done the plaintiff by the introduction of these exhibits, although afterward he bad filed an amended petition at the instance of the defendant.

¶6The last assignment of error is, that the court erred in overruling plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The record contains nothing that would have warranted the court in sustaining the motion. The record shows that plaintiff received a fair trial by the court and jury, and ought to. have been satisfied with the result, and no error has been pointed out in the proceedings that is entitled to serious consideration by this court.

¶7It is therefore recommended that the judgment of the court below be affirmed.

¶8By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.
/40/kan/756 · .json · Public domain