Murphy v. Kuntze

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Murphy v. Kuntze

142 N.W. 1134, 122 Minn. 530, 1913 Minn. LEXIS 634

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 3, 1913

DocketNos. 18,193—(218)

StatusPublished

This text of 142 N.W. 1134 (Murphy v. Kuntze) 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

Murphy v. Kuntze, 142 N.W. 1134, 122 Minn. 530, 1913 Minn. LEXIS 634 (Mich. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s right to relief depended wholly on the question whether a conveyance of 65 acres of land made by one defendant to the other was a mortgage. The jury found that it was not a mortgage. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence did not support the verdict. The trial courts are in the exercise of a sound discretion when passing on a motion for a new trial. 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 7145. We are not prepared to hold that the court abused this discretion in granting a new trial. It is unnecessary to discuss the evidence, except to state that the unusual thing about [531]*531the giving of the deed was that the seller gave the purchaser a promissory note in the amount mentioned as the consideration for the deed, and that there was an admitted understanding that if that sum was, within a certain time, paid by the seller to the purchaser a reconveyance should be made.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s right to relief depended wholly on the question whether a conveyance of 65 acres of land made by one defendant to the other was a mortgage. The jury found that it was not a mortgage. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence did not support the verdict. The trial courts are in the exercise of a sound discretion when passing on a motion for a new trial. 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 7145. We are not prepared to hold that the court abused this discretion in granting a new trial. It is unnecessary to discuss the evidence, except to state that the unusual thing about [531]*531the giving of the deed was that the seller gave the purchaser a promissory note in the amount mentioned as the consideration for the deed, and that there was an admitted understanding that if that sum was, within a certain time, paid by the seller to the purchaser a reconveyance should be made.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 N.W. 1134, 122 Minn. 530, 1913 Minn. LEXIS 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-kuntze-minn-1913.