TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Koch v. Brown

Carl W. KOCH, D/B/A Koch Elevator, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. C. H. BROWN, Jr., and Son, D/B/A Torrington Implement Company, Appellee (Defendant Below)

Koch v. Brown, 401 P.2d 459 (Wyo. 1965)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Wyoming Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 4, 1965
Docket
No. 3242
Judges
Harnsberger, Parker, Harns-Berger, Gray, McIntyre
Citations
401 P.2d 4591965 Wyo. LEXIS 139

Opinion — Harnsberger

HARNSBERGER, Justice.

Plaintiff below sought judgment against defendant for $1,500, plus $285 interest, as balance due under a contract for purchase of a hay-pelleting, steam-jet machine for the sum of $2,000, payable $500 cash, which was paid, and the balance of $1,500 to be satisfied by defendant delivering to plaintiff alfalfa hay meal and pellets, which delivery defendant failed to make.

Defendant answered that he took the machine with the understanding it could be returned and his $500 refunded if defendant could not make use of the machine; that it had never been uncrated or used; and, although defendant had repeatedly offered to return it, plaintiff refused to accept it; defendant cross-petitioned for judgment against plaintiff in the sum of $500. Upon trial to the court, judgment was rendered denying both parties any recovery. Plaintiff appeals.

Although a careful examination of the record and appellant’s brief has been made, we do not find any statement of the grounds upon which reversal of the district court’s judgment is sought, and, although it is contended the court erred, just wherein such error lies is only vaguely intimated. Appellant claims there was error in the court’s relieving appellee of the duty to pay a $1,500 balance but leaving the machine with him. The court’s order is silent about who has the right to the machine. It certainly does not award the machine to anyone.

In his conclusion appellant also claims the court’s judgment was contrary to law in that it was against the preponderance or the weight of the evidence.

*460 The weight to be given evidence and the conclusion of what preponderates is a matter wholly within the proper discretion of the trier of fact and is not a matter of law of which appellate tribunals take notice.

The most the record and brief disclose are a résumé of different testimonies which present material conflicts and appellant’s insistence that the court should have accepted the evidence most favorable to his case. This is contrary to the rule of appellate law established by a large number of this court’s decisions.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1979: 11980: 11981: 41982: 11984: 11985: 119792026peak 1981 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mentock v. Mentock638 P.2d 156 (Wyo. 1981)
  2. Madrid v. Norton596 P.2d 1108 (Wyo. 1979)
  3. Curless v. Curless708 P.2d 426 (Wyo. 1985)
  4. Cline v. Sawyer618 P.2d 144 (Wyo. 1980)
  5. Marshall v. State646 P.2d 795 (Wyo. 1982)
  6. Zanetti v. Zanetti689 P.2d 1116 (Wyo. 1984)

Most recent

  1. Curless v. Curless708 P.2d 426 (Wyo. 1985)
  2. Zanetti v. Zanetti689 P.2d 1116 (Wyo. 1984)
  3. Marshall v. State646 P.2d 795 (Wyo. 1982)
  4. Mentock v. Mentock638 P.2d 156 (Wyo. 1981)
  5. Johnson v. AETNA CAS. & SUR. CO. OF HARTFORD630 P.2d 514 (Wyo. 1981)
  6. Johnson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. of Hartford630 P.2d 514 (Wyo. 1981)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list