Northwest Thresher Co. v. Anderson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Northwest Thresher Co. v. Anderson

120 N.W. 1134, 107 Minn. 575, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 614

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 30, 1909

DocketNos. 16,144—(68)

StatusPublished

This text of 120 N.W. 1134 (Northwest Thresher Co. v. Anderson) 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

Northwest Thresher Co. v. Anderson, 120 N.W. 1134, 107 Minn. 575, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 614 (Mich. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only question involved on this appeal is whether the evidence supports the verdict. The assignments of error challenging certain rulings of the court on the admission and exclusion of evidence are not argued or discussed in the briefs, and therefore not considered. Anderson v. International Harvester Co., 104 Minn. 49, 116 N. W. 101.

In reference to the question whether the evidence sustains the verdict, little need be said. The action was brought to recover upon certain promissory notes given by defendant to plaintiff, and the defense of payment was interposed, together with a counterclaim for alleged overpayments. The verdict was for defendant to the effect that the notes had been fully paid. A careful examination of the record leads to the conclusion that the evidence, though not in all respects clear, is not so palpably against the verdict as to justify a reversal. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss the evidence, and we refrain. The order denying a new trial is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only question involved on this appeal is whether the evidence supports the verdict. The assignments of error challenging certain rulings of the court on the admission and exclusion of evidence are not argued or discussed in the briefs, and therefore not considered. Anderson v. International Harvester Co., 104 Minn. 49, 116 N. W. 101.

In reference to the question whether the evidence sustains the verdict, little need be said. The action was brought to recover upon certain promissory notes given by defendant to plaintiff, and the defense of payment was interposed, together with a counterclaim for alleged overpayments. The verdict was for defendant to the effect that the notes had been fully paid. A careful examination of the record leads to the conclusion that the evidence, though not in all respects clear, is not so palpably against the verdict as to justify a reversal. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss the evidence, and we refrain. The order denying a new trial is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 N.W. 1134, 107 Minn. 575, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northwest-thresher-co-v-anderson-minn-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack