McLeod v. Capehart

51 N.W. 923, 49 Minn. 187, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 156
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided March 23, 1892·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The first assignment of error is that the verdict was not justified by the evidence; the second — directed towards a ruling of the trial court, which was clearly correct — we shall not discuss, because no exception was taken to it; and the third, or last, assignment is superfluous. ■

The real controversy was as to the making of a verbal agreement by and between.the parties, which, if made, extended or continued a written contract, then being acted upon and about to expire, for a longer period of time. There was testimony which would have sustained a verdict for either party, and the conclusion of the jury in plaintiff’s favor should have ended the litigation.

Judgment affirmed.

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

McLeod v. Capehart, 51 N.W. 923, 49 Minn. 187, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 156 (Mich. 1892).

51 N.W. 923 (McLeod v. Capehart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Shea
59 N.W. 494 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1894)
McLeod v. Capehart
52 N.W. 381 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1892)