Finch, Van Slyck & McConville v. Singer

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Finch, Van Slyck & McConville v. Singer

190 N.W. 602, 153 Minn. 424, 1922 Minn. LEXIS 819

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 17, 1922

DocketNo. 23,128

StatusPublished

This text of 190 N.W. 602 (Finch, Van Slyck & McConville v. Singer) 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

Finch, Van Slyck & McConville v. Singer, 190 N.W. 602, 153 Minn. 424, 1922 Minn. LEXIS 819 (Mich. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Dibell, J.

Action to recover a balance due on the sale of merchandise. There was a verdict for the plaintiff and the defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The plaintiff offered evidence to show that between February 3, 1919, and October 9, 1920, it sold to the defendant merchandise of the value of $3,638.24, on which there was due $190.21. The evidence was sufficient. The defendant admitted the amount of the merchandise sold, denied that there was a balance due, and counterclaimed for damages for delay in delivery. The ruling of the trial court was against the counterclaim and it is not presented for review. At the trial the defendant claimed that there were overcharges of interest in the account, and that he had paid the plaintiff in full. The trial court painstakingly tried the case and presented it to the jury. The jury found for the plaintiff the amount demanded. The verdict ends the controversy.

Order affirmed.

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

Dibell, J.

Action to recover a balance due on the sale of merchandise. There was a verdict for the plaintiff and the defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The plaintiff offered evidence to show that between February 3, 1919, and October 9, 1920, it sold to the defendant merchandise of the value of $3,638.24, on which there was due $190.21. The evidence was sufficient. The defendant admitted the amount of the merchandise sold, denied that there was a balance due, and counterclaimed for damages for delay in delivery. The ruling of the trial court was against the counterclaim and it is not presented for review. At the trial the defendant claimed that there were overcharges of interest in the account, and that he had paid the plaintiff in full. The trial court painstakingly tried the case and presented it to the jury. The jury found for the plaintiff the amount demanded. The verdict ends the controversy.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 N.W. 602, 153 Minn. 424, 1922 Minn. LEXIS 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finch-van-slyck-mcconville-v-singer-minn-1922.