Boquist v. Engstrom

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Boquist v. Engstrom

111 N.W. 1132, 101 Minn. 538, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 626

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 17, 1907

DocketNos. 15,122-(107)

StatusPublished

This text of 111 N.W. 1132 (Boquist v. Engstrom) 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.

Bluebook

Boquist v. Engstrom, 111 N.W. 1132, 101 Minn. 538, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 626 (Mich. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the judgment of the district court of the county of Marshall in an action to recover from the defendant on a promissory note of $125 made and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The execution of the note was admitted. The defense was that there was no consideration for the note and that its execution by the defendant was secured by the fraud and deception of the plaintiff and his father. The defendant had a verdict. The plaintiff made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, which was denied. Judgment was then entered upon the verdict.

The only question raised by the assignments of error is whether there is any evidence to support the verdict. Our conclusion, from a consideration of the record, is that the jury might well have returned a verdict for the plaintiff, [539]*539but that the one they did find is not so manifestly against the weight of the ■evidence as to justify us in interfering with it.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the judgment of the district court of the county of Marshall in an action to recover from the defendant on a promissory note of $125 made and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The execution of the note was admitted. The defense was that there was no consideration for the note and that its execution by the defendant was secured by the fraud and deception of the plaintiff and his father. The defendant had a verdict. The plaintiff made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, which was denied. Judgment was then entered upon the verdict.

The only question raised by the assignments of error is whether there is any evidence to support the verdict. Our conclusion, from a consideration of the record, is that the jury might well have returned a verdict for the plaintiff, [539]*539but that the one they did find is not so manifestly against the weight of the ■evidence as to justify us in interfering with it.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 N.W. 1132, 101 Minn. 538, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boquist-v-engstrom-minn-1907.