TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Western Moline Plow Co. v. Caldwell

WESTERN MOLINE PLOW COMPANY v. JOHN W. CALDWELL

Western Moline Plow Co. v. Caldwell, 110 P. 533 (Idaho 1910)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 2, 1910
Judges
Ailshie, Sullivan
Citations
110 P. 53318 Idaho 4631910 Ida. LEXIS 54
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Action to Recover Promissory Notes — Conflict in Evidence. (Syllabus by the court.) 1. Where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence the findings of the trial court will not be set aside.
Summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, for Elmore County. Hon. Edward A. Walters, Judge. Action to recover on promissory notes. Judgment for plaintiff. Under the rules of practice in this court, “where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed.” (Heckman v. Espey, 12 Ida. 755, 88 Pac. 80, and eases cited.)

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Sullivan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This action was brought to recover judgment on three certain promissory notes for protest and attorney’s fees, amounting in all to $1,978.28 and costs of suit.

The defendant by his answer admitted the execution of said notes but averred that the agent of the defendant had extended the time for payment thereof; also averred that before the commencement of this suit defendant had tendered to the attorney of the plaintiff the entire amount due on said promissory notes including protest fees, but that the attorney refused to accept said sum unless the defendant would pay $150 attorney’s fees.

Trial was had before the court without a jury and findings of fact were made in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The court found that the amount of principal and interest due and unpaid on the promissory notes amounted to $1,799.28, protest fees $9.00 and attorney’s fees $170, and that the time for the payment of said promissory notes was not extended by the plaintiff, and that the notes were long past due on the date of the commencement of this suit. Judgment was entered on said findings for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,978.28 and costs of suit. This appeal is from the judgment.

There is a substantial conflict in the evidence on the question as to whether there was an extension of the time for payment of said promissory notes, and under the well-established rule of this court, to the effect that where there is a substantial conflict of the evidence, the findings of the trial court will not be set aside (Heckman v. Espey, 12 Ida. 755 , 88 Pac. 80 ), the judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs in favor of the respondent.

Ailshie, J., concurs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1913: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pomeroy v. Gordan137 P. 888 (Idaho 1913)

Most recent

  1. Pomeroy v. Gordan137 P. 888 (Idaho 1913)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Heckman v. Espey, 88 P. 80 (Idaho 1906) 11

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