Hyatt v. Gulbranson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Hyatt v. Gulbranson

241 N.W.2d 291, 307 Minn. 516, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1471

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 12, 1976

DocketNo. 45578

StatusPublished

This text of 241 N.W.2d 291 (Hyatt v. Gulbranson) 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

Hyatt v. Gulbranson, 241 N.W.2d 291, 307 Minn. 516, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1471 (Mich. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendants appeal from an order of the district court denying their post-trial motions in this action for breach of contract. They argue: (1) The jury’s special finding of no fraud on the part of the plaintiff is not supported by the evidence; and (2) the jury’s finding of $1,500 special damages, remitted to zero by the trial court, indicates passion and prejudice justifying a new trial. We affirm.

Defendants alleged that plaintiff made three fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the income and extent of a franchise she sold to them. Our examination of the record has revealed ample evidence from which the jury could have concluded that these representations were not false and were not justifiably relied on by defendants. Although the jury incorrectly awarded $1,500 special damages, the trial court elected to remit this amount to zero and sustain the remainder of the verdict. Our examination of the record convinces us that the verdict as a whole was not contrary to the evidence and that there was some evidence which might explain the jury’s finding of special damages. Under these circumstances, the trial court’s holding of no passion or prejudice must be upheld. See, McHardy v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, 231 Minn. 493, 44 N. W. 2d 90 (1950).

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendants appeal from an order of the district court denying their post-trial motions in this action for breach of contract. They argue: (1) The jury’s special finding of no fraud on the part of the plaintiff is not supported by the evidence; and (2) the jury’s finding of $1,500 special damages, remitted to zero by the trial court, indicates passion and prejudice justifying a new trial. We affirm.

Defendants alleged that plaintiff made three fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the income and extent of a franchise she sold to them. Our examination of the record has revealed ample evidence from which the jury could have concluded that these representations were not false and were not justifiably relied on by defendants. Although the jury incorrectly awarded $1,500 special damages, the trial court elected to remit this amount to zero and sustain the remainder of the verdict. Our examination of the record convinces us that the verdict as a whole was not contrary to the evidence and that there was some evidence which might explain the jury’s finding of special damages. Under these circumstances, the trial court’s holding of no passion or prejudice must be upheld. See, McHardy v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, 231 Minn. 493, 44 N. W. 2d 90 (1950).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 N.W.2d 291, 307 Minn. 516, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyatt-v-gulbranson-minn-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack