TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Empire Cream Separator Co. v. Abbott

The Empire Cream Separator Company v. Frank C. Abbott

Empire Cream Separator Co. v. Abbott, 169 P. 959 (Kan. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 12, 1918
Docket
No. 21,194
Judges
West
Citations
169 P. 959102 Kan. 2651918 Kan. LEXIS 23
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. Sale — Mechanieal Milker — Evidence—Findings. Evidence and findings examined, and the latter are held not to be inconsistent or -unsupported.
Summary
Appeal from Riley district court; Fred R. Smith, judge.

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

Opinion of the Court — West

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by West, J.:

The plaintiff sued to recover the purchase price of a milk separator and a mechanical milker sold to the defendant. No complaint was made of the separator, but it was pleaded that the milker injured his cows, and also damaged the defendant by the decrease in the amount of milk the cows gave,‘all in the sum of $250, the price of the milker being $163.

The one assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing a new trial, the motion for which set up inconsistency between the verdict and the findings, and that the latter were unintelligible and unsupported by the evidence.

*266 The meat of the plaintiff’s contention is that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the alleged damage by the loss of milk was caused by the machine, and that from the.testimony the amount of damages allowed by the jury could not be ascertained. But an examination of the abstract and counter-abstract convinces us that the result reached by the triers of fact was fairly supported, and that the amount allowed the defendant was fully justified by the evidence.

We perceive no material inconsistency between the findings, or between them and the general verdict.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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