Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Mortgage Land Investment Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Mortgage Land Investment Co.

172 N.W. 958, 142 Minn. 497, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 667

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 9, 1919

DocketNo. 21,200

StatusPublished

This text of 172 N.W. 958 (Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Mortgage Land Investment Co.) 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

Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Mortgage Land Investment Co., 172 N.W. 958, 142 Minn. 497, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 667 (Mich. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee CUBIAM.

Action for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien, and the recovery of the value of lumber and building material sold and delivered to defendants. A trial before the court without a jury resulted in findings of fact and an order for judgment in plaintiff’s favor. Defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for amended findings or a new trial.

The only question presented is whether the evidence supports the findings of the trial court. A careful reading of the record leads to an affirmance. We find sufficient evidence to support the findings that the material for which recovery was demanded was in fact delivered to defendants as alleged in the complaint. A discussion of the evidence is- unncessary.

Order affirmed.

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

Pee CUBIAM.

Action for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien, and the recovery of the value of lumber and building material sold and delivered to defendants. A trial before the court without a jury resulted in findings of fact and an order for judgment in plaintiff’s favor. Defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for amended findings or a new trial.

The only question presented is whether the evidence supports the findings of the trial court. A careful reading of the record leads to an affirmance. We find sufficient evidence to support the findings that the material for which recovery was demanded was in fact delivered to defendants as alleged in the complaint. A discussion of the evidence is- unncessary.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 N.W. 958, 142 Minn. 497, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hydraulic-press-brick-co-v-mortgage-land-investment-co-minn-1919.