Congdon v. Bailey

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Congdon v. Bailey

38 N.W. 629, 39 Minn. 22, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 11

DecidedJune 22, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 38 N.W. 629 (Congdon v. Bailey) 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

Congdon v. Bailey, 38 N.W. 629, 39 Minn. 22, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 11 (Mich. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Action to compel an accounting, and to have the-plaintiffs adjudged the owners of a one-third interest in certain notes, and the mortgage securing the same. The dispute arises out of a real-estate transaction; the issues made by the pleadings being very simple, and entirely of fact. A special verdict was rendered by the jury, and upon their findings defendant was entitled to judgments Upon motion of plaintiffs, this special verdict was vacated, set aside,, and a new trial ordered, from which determination defendant appeals. It is quite evident, although not precisely so stated, that the court below felt that the verdict was not justified by the evidence, and for that reason ordered a resubmission of the issues. This conclusion cannot be disturbed, under the rule so frequently applied. See Crosby v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 413, (26 N. W. Rep. 225,) and cases cited. The evidence has been carefully examined; the granting of a new trial was a matter clearly within the discretion of the trial court; and the order is affirmed.

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

By the Court.

Action to compel an accounting, and to have the-plaintiffs adjudged the owners of a one-third interest in certain notes, and the mortgage securing the same. The dispute arises out of a real-estate transaction; the issues made by the pleadings being very simple, and entirely of fact. A special verdict was rendered by the jury, and upon their findings defendant was entitled to judgments Upon motion of plaintiffs, this special verdict was vacated, set aside,, and a new trial ordered, from which determination defendant appeals. It is quite evident, although not precisely so stated, that the court below felt that the verdict was not justified by the evidence, and for that reason ordered a resubmission of the issues. This conclusion cannot be disturbed, under the rule so frequently applied. See Crosby v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 413, (26 N. W. Rep. 225,) and cases cited. The evidence has been carefully examined; the granting of a new trial was a matter clearly within the discretion of the trial court; and the order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 N.W. 629, 39 Minn. 22, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/congdon-v-bailey-minn-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack