Opinion
File No. 9346.
Opinion filed June 25, 1953. Rehearing denied August 12, 1953.
1. Money Paid.
In action by which plaintiff sought to recover from defendant a sum of money which plaintiff had allegedly paid to certain ranchers at request of defendant as purchase price of alfalfa seed delivered to defendant, wherein defendant denied that payment was made at his request, conflicting evidence made issue of fact for trial court as to whether defendant directed or authorized the payment and, if he did, whether he later impliedly or expressly revoked that authorization.
2. Appeal and Error.
A finding of a trial court on an issue of fact, when not against the clear preponderance of the evidence, will not be disturbed by appellate court.
Appeal from Circuit Court of Lawrence County; Hon. Alex Rentto, Judge.
Action by which plaintiff sought to recover a sum of money which he had allegedly paid to certain ranchers at request of defendant as the purchase price of alfalfa seed. From the entry of judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Smiley Clark, Belle Fourche, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Bielski, Elliott Lewis, Sioux Falls, for Defendants and Appellants.
This is a companion case to Unke v. Thorpe, 75 S.D. 65, 59 N.W.2d 419, and resort must be had to the facts outlined in that case for a more full understanding of the factual background of this case.
By his complaint the plaintiff Christopherson seeks to recover from defendant Unke $7,218.83 which he alleges he paid to F.L. Thorpe and C.W. Waters at the request of defendant as the purchase price of alfalfa seed. The defendant Unke denied that the payment was made at his request.
[1, 2] An issue of fact was presented to the court (1) whether defendant directed or authorized the payment and (2) if he did, whether he later impliedly or expressly revoked that authorization. The evidence was in sharp conflict. The trial court elected to believe the plaintiff and his witnesses. We cannot say the trial court was not justified in believing plaintiff's witnesses, or that the clear preponderance of the evidence is against its findings. Therefore, we are not at liberty to disturb the judgment. Houck v. Hult, 63 S.D. 290, 258 N.W. 142; Scott v. Liechti, 70 S.D. 89, 15 N.W.2d 1; and Rhode v. Farup, 67 S.D. 437, 293 N.W. 632.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
All the Judges concur.