Barron v. Paulson
This text of 22 Minn. 36 (Barron v. Paulson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Upon the trial below the only question in this case was whether certain ploughs were sold to defendant or consigned to him for sale upon commission. On [37]*37plaintiff’s motion % new trial was granted upon the ground that the verdict for defendant was not justified by the evidence. From the order granting the same, defendant -appeals. Referring to the views expressed by this court in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434, upon the general question as to the manner in which appeals of this kind should be treated, we are of opinion that the order granting the new trial in the case at bar should be affirmed. The case is one in which the preponderance of evidence was not only not “ manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict,” but clearly against it.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
22 Minn. 36, 1875 Minn. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barron-v-paulson-minn-1875.