Clifford v. Gienger
Clifford v. Gienger
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Fisher & Gienger were butchers and Pass was a hotel keeper, and Clifford the guarantor of the innkeeper’s purchases from the butchers under a written agreement. The-agreement provided that Clifford should answer for the price of all meats bought by Pass and delivered to the Lindell Hotel for one month from June 28,1893. Acting under the agreement the butchers sold and delivered a large quantity of meats of various descriptions to Pass which he did not pay for. When Fisher & Gienger failed to collect the account, it was presented to the guarantor, Clifford, and according toGienger’s evidence, he promised to pay, though he ultimately refused. Thereupon this action was brought against him to-recover the bill. The case was tried to the court without a jury and on the conclusion of the testimony the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs.
Acting under the well established rule of the appellate-courts of the state, we must refuse to discuss the sufficiency
Aside from this proposition, there are but two legal considerations which are urged on our attention, and to our minds these are so obviously without foundation that we find it difficult to escape the conclusion that the appellant is without any firm faith in the sufficiency of his position. The appellant attempted during the progress of the trial, and in the examination of one of the partners, to examine the entries in the book after the guaranty had been canceled, to prove how much meat had been delivered within a definite time after-wards while Pass and the partnership still dealt as butchers ■and hotel keeper. The offer of the proof was to show that Pass’s meat bills were not over a third of what they had been during the life of the guaranty, and the patronage of the hotel was substantially the same. The offer went no farther, and
There are one or two other minor matters suggested by counsel, but they are not of sufficient importance to justify discussion, and since we find ample reasons in the record to sustain the judgment, and none upon which we can rightfully reverse it, we shall permit it to stand.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.