McDonald v. White

99 N.W. 1133, 92 Minn. 39, 1904 Minn. LEXIS 473
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedApril 22, 1904
DocketNos. 13,813—(59)
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 N.W. 1133 (McDonald v. White) 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
McDonald v. White, 99 N.W. 1133, 92 Minn. 39, 1904 Minn. LEXIS 473 (Mich. 1904).

Opinion

PER OURIAM.

Action to recover damages for alleged breach of covenant of warranty contained in a conveyance of real property. Plaintiff had judgment in the court below, and defendant appealed therefrom;

[40]*40The only question presented is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court. Plaintiff's right of action was conceded on the trial, but in defense it was alleged that the cause of action had, prior to the commencement of the action, been compromised and settled by an arrangement between the parties. The court found that no such settlement had ever been made, and our examination of the evidence returned in the record leads to the conclusion that the findings are sustained.

Defendant also interposed a counterclaim for taxes alleged to have been paid by him upon the property, and his right to offset the same against any recovery in favor of plaintiff was conceded. The trial court found the amount of such taxes to be $393.75, while the answer alleged that they amounted to $419.99. The evidence returned to this court is not conclusive that the court erred in this finding. Although the certificate attached to the case certifies that all the evidence is returned, it appears from an examination of the record that certain exhibits offered and received on the trial are not in fact contained in the record. This being the case, the fact must prevail over the certificate of the trial judge (Sage v. Rudnick, 67 Minn. 362, 69 N. W. 1096); and, the evidence not being all returned, the findings of the trial court must be sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Sheffield King Milling Co. v. Chicago Great Western Railroad
210 N.W. 282 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 N.W. 1133, 92 Minn. 39, 1904 Minn. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-white-minn-1904.