(Download) "Hartwell Corporation v. Edgar F. Smith" by Court of Appeals of Idaho No. 14082 # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Hartwell Corporation v. Edgar F. Smith
- Author : Court of Appeals of Idaho No. 14082
- Release Date : January 19, 1984
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
The Hartwell Corporation sued Edgar Smith, a former employee, to recover on a promissory note. Smith counterclaimed for the reasonable value of his services to the Corporation. At trial, when the evidence was in, the district court ruled Smith had failed to prove the defenses he had pled to the note. Therefore, the court directed the jury to find for the Corporation on its complaint. The jury was further instructed to determine the amount to which the Corporation was entitled under the note and whether Smith should prevail on his counterclaim. The jury awarded the Corporation $5,950, which award is not challenged on appeal, and found in favor of Smith on his counterclaim in the amount of $5,950. The Corporation moved for a judgment n.o.v. The motion was denied and the Corporation appealed. The Corporation raises five issues on appeal. First, were its motions to dismiss Smith's counterclaim and for judgment n.o.v., on the grounds that his counterclaim was barred by the statute of limitations, properly denied? Second, was its motion for a directed verdict, on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to entitle Smith to a recovery or an offset, properly denied? Third, did the district court err in permitting the jury to consider Smith's counterclaim when there was no competent evidence from which the jury could determine the amount of any claimed offset? Fourth, was there sufficient evidence to justify instructing the jury on the theory of unjust enrichment in regard to Smith's counterclaim? Fifth, did the verdict form which was submitted to the jury improperly suggest that if Smith was entitled to an offset such offset was necessarily equal to the amount found due the plaintiff? We reverse the remand for a new trial on the counterclaim.