Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

HYDROTEX, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE, v. L. D. PUTNAM, APPELLANT.

Judgments: Appeal and Error. No judgment shall be reversed for an error that does not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party.

SMITH, J.

A jury returned a general verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1,921.82, which represented the price of goods plaintiff allegedly sold defendant. On appeal defendant only contends the court erred in giving the jury a single verdict form that required a finding for plaintiff.

The bill of exceptions is a case stated. Defendant admitted receipt of some of the goods and use of a small part. He offered evidence to establish a sale on approval or on return. See 2-326 and 2-327, U.C.C. The district court instructed the jury in substance that defendant was liable for the part used. Defendant does not complain of the instructions except the one that submitted the single form of verdict.

The record omits a description of the items defendant used. Some, such as tar and lube, were consumable goods. The jury necessarily disbelieved defendant's evidence. Otherwise under the instructions it would have found an amount less than the total of plaintiff's claim.

No judgment shall be reversed for an error that does not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party. 25-853, R.R.S. 1943. The contention of defendant is not well taken.

The judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HYDROTEX v. PUTNAM
(Jul 7, 1972)