Vennum v. Gregory
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Paul v. Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1901)
- Popejoy v. Eastburn (Iowa 1950)
- Preston v. McClelland (Iowa 1923)
- Sutherland v. Guthrie (W. Va. 1920)
- Bracken v. Jackson (Iowa 1913)
- Hahl v. Kellogg (Tex. App. 1906)
- Sidway v. American Mortgage Co. of Scotland, Ltd. (Ill. App. Ct. 1905)
- Jackson v. Pleasanton (Va. 1903)
- Bingham v. Keylor (Wash. 1901)
- B. Oppenheimer & Co. v. Fritter (Tex. App. 1887)
- Prescott v. White (Ill. App. Ct. 1886)
- Sumner v. Reicheniker (Kan. 1872)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The evidence fully sustains the findings of fact by the court. The only questions for us to determine, are as to the correctness of the legal conclusions or adjudications upon those facts.
But in this case the court required the defendant to refund to plaintiffs the amount — ten dollars — paid by them to Samuel Holmes, for his services. This was error,-as well as the allowing of ten per cent on the two sums.
The judgment should have been for the plaintiffs for the difference as found by the court, and for the amount paid defendant for his services, and six per cent thereon from date of the receipt thereof by the defendant, up to date of judgment.
Since the defendant made the excess of the judgment one ground for a new trial, thus calling the attention of the court to that particular point, the appellees must pay
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.