Murray v. Hoerr

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Murray v. Hoerr

84 N.W. 42, 81 Minn. 340, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 640

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 13, 1900

DocketNos. 12,459—(222)

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.W. 42 (Murray v. Hoerr) 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

Murray v. Hoerr, 84 N.W. 42, 81 Minn. 340, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 640 (Mich. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Tbis ease was tried by tbe court without a jury, and on its findings of fact judgment was ordered for tbe plaintiff. Tbe appeal is from an order denying a new trial.

Tbe dispute in tbe case was whether the plaintiff paid to tbe defendant $400 as part payment upon her husband’s notes for an amount largely in excess of $400, as claimed by tbe defendant, or paid tbe $400 in full for tbe notes, which were to be delivered to her, as her property, as claimed by tbe plaintiff. Tbe evidence upon tbis point was conflicting, but, after a careful examination, we are obliged to say that there was an abundance to sustain tbe findings in plaintiff’s favor. It is true that tbe finding on tbe main fact does not exactly correspond with tbe allegations of tbe complaint, but there was no substantial departure or variance in tbe proofs upon which tbis finding was based from such allegation.

As there was evidence to sustain tbe findings, tbe order appealed from must stand affirmed, in accordance with tbe well-established rule in such cases. It is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

Tbis ease was tried by tbe court without a jury, and on its findings of fact judgment was ordered for tbe plaintiff. Tbe appeal is from an order denying a new trial.

Tbe dispute in tbe case was whether the plaintiff paid to tbe defendant $400 as part payment upon her husband’s notes for an amount largely in excess of $400, as claimed by tbe defendant, or paid tbe $400 in full for tbe notes, which were to be delivered to her, as her property, as claimed by tbe plaintiff. Tbe evidence upon tbis point was conflicting, but, after a careful examination, we are obliged to say that there was an abundance to sustain tbe findings in plaintiff’s favor. It is true that tbe finding on tbe main fact does not exactly correspond with tbe allegations of tbe complaint, but there was no substantial departure or variance in tbe proofs upon which tbis finding was based from such allegation.

As there was evidence to sustain tbe findings, tbe order appealed from must stand affirmed, in accordance with tbe well-established rule in such cases. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.W. 42, 81 Minn. 340, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-hoerr-minn-1900.