Jones v. Evans

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Jones v. Evans

23 N.W. 545, 33 Minn. 402, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 92

DecidedMay 25, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 23 N.W. 545 (Jones v. Evans) 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

Jones v. Evans, 23 N.W. 545, 33 Minn. 402, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 92 (Mich. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Gileillan, 0. J.¹

The entire matter of the existence of defendant’s counterclaims was, as the evidence stood, for the jury. On it they could find in favor of all, or against all, or in favor of some and against others; From the general verdict it is impossible to say with certainty how they found on any one of them; and if they made any mistake in their conclusions from the facts they found, it is impossible to say whether it was to the prejudice of the plaintiff or of the defendant. But if we indulge in conjecture and speculation as to what they found, the probable theory is that they allowed the second and third counterclaims, with interest, and disallowed the item of services in the first counterclaim, on the ground that they were rendered gratuitously, and allowed, with interest, the item in that counterclaim for money paid. This would bring the balance within a dollar or two of the verdict, it being about that amount less than such balance.

At any rate, we cannot see that the jury found. against evidence to the prejudice of defendant, and the plaintiff does not complain.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gileillan, 0. J.¹

The entire matter of the existence of defendant’s counterclaims was, as the evidence stood, for the jury. On it they could find in favor of all, or against all, or in favor of some and against others; From the general verdict it is impossible to say with certainty how they found on any one of them; and if they made any mistake in their conclusions from the facts they found, it is impossible to say whether it was to the prejudice of the plaintiff or of the defendant. But if we indulge in conjecture and speculation as to what they found, the probable theory is that they allowed the second and third counterclaims, with interest, and disallowed the item of services in the first counterclaim, on the ground that they were rendered gratuitously, and allowed, with interest, the item in that counterclaim for money paid. This would bring the balance within a dollar or two of the verdict, it being about that amount less than such balance.

At any rate, we cannot see that the jury found. against evidence to the prejudice of defendant, and the plaintiff does not complain.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 N.W. 545, 33 Minn. 402, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-evans-minn-1885.