Long v. Conn

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Long v. Conn

172 N.W. 958, 142 Minn. 502, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 671

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 23, 1919

DocketNo. 21,253

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 172 N.W. 958 (Long v. Conn) 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

Long v. Conn, 172 N.W. 958, 142 Minn. 502, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 671 (Mich. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

PEB CURIAM.

Appellant presented to the probate court for allowance, a claim against the estate of deceased, based on a promissory note of $1,000, decedent being the maker and appellant the payee thereof. From an order disallowing the claim, an appeal was taken to the district court, where there was a trial by jury. The defense was that there was no eonsideraiton for the note. At the close of the evidence, the court, on appellant’s motion, directed a verdict in his favor. Thereafter respondent moved for a new trial, on the ground that the court erred in directing the verdict and that the same was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law. The case is here on appeal from an order granting the motion.

The sole question presented is whether respondent produced sufficient evidence to require the submission to the jury of the issue of want of consideration. A careful examination of the record has led us to the conclusion that he did and that the court was right in granting the motion for a new trial. In view of the fact that the case is to be tried again, we refrain from commenting on the evidence.

Order affirmed.

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

PEB CURIAM.

Appellant presented to the probate court for allowance, a claim against the estate of deceased, based on a promissory note of $1,000, decedent being the maker and appellant the payee thereof. From an order disallowing the claim, an appeal was taken to the district court, where there was a trial by jury. The defense was that there was no eonsideraiton for the note. At the close of the evidence, the court, on appellant’s motion, directed a verdict in his favor. Thereafter respondent moved for a new trial, on the ground that the court erred in directing the verdict and that the same was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law. The case is here on appeal from an order granting the motion.

The sole question presented is whether respondent produced sufficient evidence to require the submission to the jury of the issue of want of consideration. A careful examination of the record has led us to the conclusion that he did and that the court was right in granting the motion for a new trial. In view of the fact that the case is to be tried again, we refrain from commenting on the evidence.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 N.W. 958, 142 Minn. 502, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-conn-minn-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack