Babbitt Bros. Trading v. New Home Sewing Mach. Co.

This case comes before us on appeal from a judgment rendered in an action at law brought on three trade acceptances, aggregating $9,096.60, drawn by the appellee, plaintiff below, on the defendant-appellant, and accepted by the latter.

A jury was waived by the parties, the written waiver stipulating “that the findings of the court upon the facts, which may be either general or special, shall have the same effect as the verdict of a jury.”

The New Home Sewing Machine Company, the appellee, is a corporation duly organized under the laws of Massachusetts, of which it is a citizen, and the Babbitt Brothers Trading Company, the appellant, is organized under the laws of Arizona, and is a citizen of that state.

The three drafts in question were each dated September 18, 1928, and the respective acceptances were each dated October 9; 1928. They specified that, “The obligation of the acceptor hereof arises out of the purchase of goods from the drawer.”

On March 18,1929, Trade Acceptance No. 1 was presented by the appellee to the appellant in accordance with the terms of said acceptance, and demand was made for the payment thereof; said appellant then refused and has ever since refused…

(concurring).

I concur in the judgment of affirmance for the following reasons:

The appellant seeks to have ns review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment of the trial court. The ease was tried by the court, a jury having been waived. The hill of exceptions states that the trial occurred on the 2d of July, 1931; that on the 25th of August, 1931, the court filed its memorandum of authorities and derision in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant, to which ruling an exception was entered on behalf of the defendant. The bill of exceptions states that: “Thereafter, on the 26th day of August, 1931, plaintiff was granted an extension of time within which , to file findings of fact and conclusions of law, for a period of thirty days from and after August 26th, 1931, and thereafter, on the 7th day of November, 1931, the court denied defendant’s proposed amendments and additions to plaintiff’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, to which ruling of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly excepted, and thereupon, on said 7th day of November, 1931, judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant.”

The findings of fact,…