Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Peters

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Peters

120 N.W. 1134, 108 Minn. 517, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 745

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 7, 1909

DocketNos. 16,115—(88)

StatusPublished

This text of 120 N.W. 1134 (Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Peters) 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

Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Peters, 120 N.W. 1134, 108 Minn. 517, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 745 (Mich. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Peb Curiam.

Plaintiff and respondent brought action against defendant and appellant to recover on a promissory note. The defense interposed and submitted to the jury was that plaintiff’s agent, Curtiss, had induced defendant to sign a note by fraud. The jury returned a verdict for defendant. The court granted a new trial because of the insufficiency of the evidence. The briefs of counsel suggest that the issue was erroneously limited to fraud. The assignments of error, however, present as the only question, whether the court abused its discretion in granting a new trial upon the evidence which the record presents. That record discloses a controversy between the two defendants on the one side, and the agent of plaintiff, Curtiss, on the other side. The ease is of a type frequently presented. The record discloses no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

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

Peb Curiam.

Plaintiff and respondent brought action against defendant and appellant to recover on a promissory note. The defense interposed and submitted to the jury was that plaintiff’s agent, Curtiss, had induced defendant to sign a note by fraud. The jury returned a verdict for defendant. The court granted a new trial because of the insufficiency of the evidence. The briefs of counsel suggest that the issue was erroneously limited to fraud. The assignments of error, however, present as the only question, whether the court abused its discretion in granting a new trial upon the evidence which the record presents. That record discloses a controversy between the two defendants on the one side, and the agent of plaintiff, Curtiss, on the other side. The ease is of a type frequently presented. The record discloses no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 N.W. 1134, 108 Minn. 517, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minneapolis-threshing-machine-co-v-peters-minn-1909.