54 Wis. 389 | Wis. | 1882
Several alleged errors are assigned and are discussed in the briefs of counsel, but we find it necessary to consider but one of them. The principal question of fact litigated on the trial was, Did the defendant purchase the barrels in controversy of the plaintiff? This question seems to have been fairly submitted to the jury, and they have resolved it in the affirmative. Whatever our opinion may be of the weight of the testimony, there is sufficient testimony to support the verdict. It is a verity inj the case, therefore, made so by the verdict, that the defendant purchased the barrels theretofore stored by the plaintiff in the old mill. That being so, the defendant became the owner of the barrels, and they were at his risk. Hence, he became liable for the price of those-burned, immediately upon their being destroyed. But this rule does not apply to the 163 barrels saved from the fire. It satisfactorily appears by the plaintiff’s testimony that he took these into his own possession. He assisted in placing them in his building, and notified the defendant that they were there subject t,o hisorder. Hedid so without the consent or knowledge of the defendant, áxid it cannot be correctly said that the defendant
For this reason the judgment of the municipal court must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
By the Court. — So ordered.