Erickson v. Montgomery

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Erickson v. Montgomery

213 N.W. 919, 171 Minn. 518, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1641

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided May 6, 1927·No. No. 25,475.·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An action brought for the dissolution and accounting of a partnership, entered into for the purpose of publishing a directory, was tried to a jury and a verdict rendered for plaintiff in the sum of $1,381.93. The assignments of error raise no question reviewable here except the one whether the verdict is excessive, for no exceptions were preserved as to rulings on evidence or the charge at the trial, nor were any other properly made in the motion for a new trial. The action being based on contract, the assignment that the verdict is excessive comes under G. S. 1923, § 9325, subd. 7. If the jury took the view, as might be done under the evidence and the charge of the court to ,which there was no exception, that Hill’s salary of $2,200 was a fictitious expense or charge, the verdict is readily accounted *519 for — plaintiff having drawn nothing, and defendant $480, and' the statement of the venture furnished plaintiff by defendant showing a net profit of $128.38.

The order is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

An action brought for the dissolution and accounting of a partnership, entered into for the purpose of publishing a directory, was tried to a jury and a verdict rendered for plaintiff in the sum of $1,381.93. The assignments of error raise no question reviewable here except the one whether the verdict is excessive, for no exceptions were preserved as to rulings on evidence or the charge at the trial, nor were any other properly made in the motion for a new trial. The action being based on contract, the assignment that the verdict is excessive comes under G. S. 1923, § 9325, subd. 7. If the jury took the view, as might be done under the evidence and the charge of the court to ,which there was no exception, that Hill’s salary of $2,200 was a fictitious expense or charge, the verdict is readily accounted *519 for — plaintiff having drawn nothing, and defendant $480, and' the statement of the venture furnished plaintiff by defendant showing a net profit of $128.38.

The order is affirmed.

Erickson v. Montgomery, 213 N.W. 919, 171 Minn. 518, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1641 (Mich. 1927).

Pincite

213 N.W. 919 (Erickson v. Montgomery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related