
    Kola Lumber Company, Appellant, vs. Stoughton Wagon Company, Respondent.
    
      September 14 —
    October 4, 1910.
    
    
      Appeal: Findings, when disturbed.
    
    Upon evidence fairly justifying either of two inferences, the de cisión of the trial court must control.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Dane county: E. Kay Stevens, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Plaintiff brings this action to recover tbe purchase price of a carload of wagon bottoms shipped by it to defendant without any order from defendant requesting it so to do. The bottoms so shipped were used by defendant. Prior to the making of the shipment the defendant had entered into an executory contract with the Ellisville Lumber Company to furnish it a number of wagon bottoms. A jury was waived, and the trial court found that the car in question was shipped in part execution of the contract between the Ellis-ville Lumber Company and the defendant; that it was shipped by the plaintiff for and upon the credit of the Ellis-ville Lumber Company; and that the Ellisville Lumber Company and not the plaintiff was the real party in interest. On the findings so made judgment was entered dismissing the complaint.
    For the appellant there was a brief by Tenney, Hall •& Tenney, and oral argument by F. W. Hall.
    
    For the respondent there was a brief by Olin •& Butler, and oral argument by H. L. Butter.
    
   Babnes, J.

If any contract relation existed between plaintiff and defendant, it existed by implication only. Certain facts were testified to from which the court might well have inferred an implied contract on the part of the defendant to pay plaintiff for tbe lumber. Other facts were shown from which it could be legitimately inferred that the plaintiff shipped the lumber in part execution of the contract between the Ellisville Lumber Company and the defendant and upon the credit of the Ellisville Lumber Company. It is as logical to draw the latter inference from the evidence as it is the former.

° “Upon evidence fairly justifying either of two inferences,, the decision of the.trial court must control.” Spuhr v. Kolb, 111 Wis. 119, 120, 86 N. W. 562.

It is not the custom of this court to embody in its opinions the evidence sustaining the findings of trial courts, inasmuch as no useful purpose would be served by so doing.

By the Court.- — Judgment affirmed.  