Mid-Continent Tire Manufacturing Co. v. Motor Equipment Co.

Citations

• 111 Kan. 719
• 208 P. 659
• 1922 Kan. LEXIS 333

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Sale — Auto Tire Tubes — Action for Price Thereof — Evidence As to Items of Credit Claimed. In an action to recover for the sale of automobile tire tubes, the cross-petition set up divers items for which credit was claimed. As to one, of $411.85, for tubes returned by the defendant’s customers on account of light weight, certain items of credit contained in letters of the defendant to its customers were incompetent and properly rejected.</p> <p>2. Same. As to such item of $411.85 there was sufficient competent evidence introduced to take it to the jury, and it was error to exclude it from ffieir consideration.</p> <p>3. Same — Negative and Leading Interrogatories. Rule followed and held, improper to submit to a jury negative and leading interrogations.</p> <p>4. Same — Improper Claim for Damages. Under the evidence the withdrawal from the jury of a claim of credit for damages for failure to stamp the inner tubes sold the defendant, held proper.</p> <p>5. Same — Claim for Loss of Profits Speculative and Uncertain. A claim for loss of profits examined and held to have been speculative and uncertain and therefore properly withdrawn from the juiy.</p> <p>6. Same — Question of Trade Custom Immaterial. The parties contracted by verbal negotiation confirmed by various letters, which letters set forth the terms of the contract as each party understood them. Held, that the question of trade custom was immaterial and this was properly withheld from the jury.</p> <p>7. Same — Item of Credit Improperly Withheld from Jury. An item of $180.95 of credit claimed by the defendant on account of a five per cent discount on tire tubes sold in May and remitted for on June 10 thereafter, held to have been proper for consideration and its exclusion erroneous.</p> <p>8. Same — No Conflict Between Evidence and Verdict. The asserted irreconcilable conflict between the evidence and the verdict held to be without substantial merit.</p>