TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Herculith Co. v. Gustafson

HERCULITH COMPANY, LTD., a Corporation v. J. GUSTAFSON

Herculith Co. v. Gustafson, 126 P. 1050 (Idaho 1912)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 26, 1912
Judges
Ailshie, Stewart, Sullivan
Citations
126 P. 105022 Idaho 5371912 Ida. LEXIS 54
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Verdict — Sufficiency op Evidence — Errors in Law — Instructions. (Syllabus by the court.) 1. Under the provisions of see. 4824, Rev. Codes, when there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, it must not be set aside. 2. Held, that the court did not err in rejecting certain evidence offered by the defendant. 3. Held, that the court did not err in refusing to give certain instructions requested by the defendant.
Summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Carl A. Davis, Judge. Action to recover on two promissory notes. Judgment for plaintiff. Counsel cite no authorities on point decided.

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, J.

This action was brought to recover on two promissory notes, one for $250 and the other for $500, and interest. Said notes bear date of February 27, 1911, and were given in payment for 750 shares of capital stock of the plaintiff corporation, of the par value of one dollar each. The respondent company was engaged in the manufacture of tile-ñooring material, artificial marble and enamel bricks, used in the construction of buildings and for other purposes.

As a defense to said action the appellant alleged fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the officers and agents of the company, respecting the quality and character of the material manufactured by defendant, and that it was through such false and fraudulent representations that he was induced to purchase said stock and to execute said notes.

The case was tried by the court with a jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the respondent company. This appeal is from the judgment.

The assignments of error go to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and alleged errors in the rulings of the court in regard to the admission of certain evidence, and the refusal to give certain instructions offered by the defendant.

After a careful examination of the evidence, we are satisfied that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict, and we are admonished by the provisions of sec. 4824, Rev. Codes, that in such a case the verdict should not be set aside.

On an examination of the rulings of the court in regard to the admission of certain evidence, we are satisfied that the court did not err in its rulings in regard thereto. The in- *539 struetions given by the court fairly cover the law of the case, and it was not error for the court to refuse to give the instructions requested by counsel for the defendant.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Costs in favor of respondent.

Stewart, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1913: 11914: 11917: 11921: 11925: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Watkins v. Mountain Home Co-operative Irrigation Co.197 P. 247 (Idaho 1921)
  2. Denbeigh v. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.132 P. 112 (Idaho 1913)
  3. Snoderly v. Bower166 P. 265 (Idaho 1917) · Dissent
  4. Oregon Short Line Railroad v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.237 P. 281 (Idaho 1925)
  5. McLean v. Hayden Creek Mining & Milling Co.138 P. 331 (Idaho 1914) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part

Most recent

  1. Oregon Short Line Railroad v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.237 P. 281 (Idaho 1925)
  2. Watkins v. Mountain Home Co-operative Irrigation Co.197 P. 247 (Idaho 1921)
  3. Snoderly v. Bower166 P. 265 (Idaho 1917) · Dissent
  4. McLean v. Hayden Creek Mining & Milling Co.138 P. 331 (Idaho 1914) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
  5. Denbeigh v. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.132 P. 112 (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 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