Cody v. Bemis

Decided August 15, 1876

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1876-08-15

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff contracted with defendants for the purchase from the latter of a bureau, for the agreed price of $22, and that said sum has been paid, but defendants have refused to deliver the bureau on demand. Judgment is ashed for the amount paid, with costs. The answer alleges that the bureau was delivered in pursuance of the contract, and that it was to be paid for in logs, which have been delivered and accepted in payment.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1906

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-08-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ryan, C. J.

¶1The complaint avers that the respondent paid the appellants for the bureau in question. The proof is, that he made the payment through a third person, his debtor, who delivered or had delivered logs for him to the appellants, to the amount of the price, for which the respondent gave him credit. If a variance, this is only a variance which could not mislead the appellants, and cannot disturb the judgment here. Harris v. Wicks, 28 Wis., 198; Strahlendorf v. Rosenthal, 30 id., 674; Flanders v. Cottrell, 36 id., 564.

¶2The other matters argued here were pure questions of fact, arising on a conflict of evidence, fairly submitted by the court below to the jury, and which the jury found for the respondent. It is not for us to review such a finding.

¶3By the Court. — The judgment of the court below is affirmed.