Dwelle v. Rahilly

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Dwelle v. Rahilly

82 N.W. 479, 79 Minn. 314, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 786

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 27, 1900

DocketNos. 12,123-(24)

StatusPublished

This text of 82 N.W. 479 (Dwelle v. Rahilly) 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

Dwelle v. Rahilly, 82 N.W. 479, 79 Minn. 314, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 786 (Mich. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

PER GURIAM.

Action to recover a balance of $236, alleged to be due on a promissory note. Defense that $200 of this amount had been paid. The trial resulted in a verdict by the jury for the full, amount. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

It is necessary to mention one only of the errors assigned, viz., is the evidence insufficient to support the verdict, and did the court, for that reason, err in refusing to grant a new trial? Defendant insists that the direct statement as to the payment of the $200 was not met by any positive evidence on part of the plaintiff. The court properly submitted the question to the jury. The evidence' is not clearly and palpably against the verdict, and therefore, within the rule long established by the decisions of this state, the order must be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

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

PER GURIAM.

Action to recover a balance of $236, alleged to be due on a promissory note. Defense that $200 of this amount had been paid. The trial resulted in a verdict by the jury for the full, amount. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

It is necessary to mention one only of the errors assigned, viz., is the evidence insufficient to support the verdict, and did the court, for that reason, err in refusing to grant a new trial? Defendant insists that the direct statement as to the payment of the $200 was not met by any positive evidence on part of the plaintiff. The court properly submitted the question to the jury. The evidence' is not clearly and palpably against the verdict, and therefore, within the rule long established by the decisions of this state, the order must be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.W. 479, 79 Minn. 314, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dwelle-v-rahilly-minn-1900.