Northwestern Marble & Tile Co. v. Swenson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Northwestern Marble & Tile Co. v. Swenson

175 N.W. 99, 144 Minn. 466, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 766

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 19, 1919

DocketNo. 21,510

StatusPublished

This text of 175 N.W. 99 (Northwestern Marble & Tile Co. v. Swenson) 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

Northwestern Marble & Tile Co. v. Swenson, 175 N.W. 99, 144 Minn. 466, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 766 (Mich. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The principal question presented on this appeal is whether the verdict of the jury is clearly against the evidence. The controversy in the ease centered around the terms of the building contract involved in the action, and whether plaintiff was thereby obligated to do a certain part of the tile work on the roof of the building, plaintiff insisting that the contract did not impose the particular work upon it, while defendant contended to the contrary. The terms of the contract were not clear, and extrinjsic evidence was presented by both parties. It was conflicting and presented a question of fact for the jury. The verdict is not clearly against the evidence, and must be sustained since it has been approved by the trial court. There were no errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence of a character to justify a new trial.

Order affirmed.

Holt, J., took no part.

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

Per Curiam.

The principal question presented on this appeal is whether the verdict of the jury is clearly against the evidence. The controversy in the ease centered around the terms of the building contract involved in the action, and whether plaintiff was thereby obligated to do a certain part of the tile work on the roof of the building, plaintiff insisting that the contract did not impose the particular work upon it, while defendant contended to the contrary. The terms of the contract were not clear, and extrinjsic evidence was presented by both parties. It was conflicting and presented a question of fact for the jury. The verdict is not clearly against the evidence, and must be sustained since it has been approved by the trial court. There were no errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence of a character to justify a new trial.

Order affirmed.

Holt, J., took no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 N.W. 99, 144 Minn. 466, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northwestern-marble-tile-co-v-swenson-minn-1919.