Pellowski v. Pellowski

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Pellowski v. Pellowski

265 N.W. 440, 196 Minn. 572, 1936 Minn. LEXIS 1011

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 6, 1936

DocketNo. 30,749.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 265 N.W. 440 (Pellowski v. Pellowski) 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

Pellowski v. Pellowski, 265 N.W. 440, 196 Minn. 572, 1936 Minn. LEXIS 1011 (Mich. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

I. M. Olsen, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial after verdict in defendant’s favor.

The action is one to recover possession of certain articles of personal property consisting of oriental rugs, some chairs, and small items of house furnishings. Plaintiff and defendant Walter Pellow-ski each claimed ownership of and right to possession of the property. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant Walter Pellowski. The verdict was a five-sixths verdict. There had been a former trial and verdict for defendant. A new trial had been granted to the plaintiff on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The sole ground here presented for reversal of the order of the *573 trial court denying the motion for a second new trial is that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. It would serve no useful purpose here to recite the evidence presented for each of the parties. It is sufficient to say that there is direct conflict in the evidence as to which party purchased and owns the property. ’ The jury could have found either way. It is not for us to determine the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court and the jury, who see and hear the witnesses, are to determine their credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony. Whether the defendant and the witnesses called by him were worthy of belief, or the facts stated by them so inherently improbable as to be unworthy of belief, was primarily for the trial court and jury to determine. Johnson v. Finch, Van Slyck & McConville, 115 Minn. 252, 132 N. W. 276. After two trials, resulting in verdict each time for the defendant, the verdict of the jury here challenged, approved by the trial court, is entitled to great weight. Only in case the evidence for the prevailing party is clearly false or insufficient will this court reverse. We are satisfied that the evidence presented a question of fact for the jury as to the ownership of the property and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Order affirmed.

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

I. M. Olsen, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial after verdict in defendant’s favor.

The action is one to recover possession of certain articles of personal property consisting of oriental rugs, some chairs, and small items of house furnishings. Plaintiff and defendant Walter Pellow-ski each claimed ownership of and right to possession of the property. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant Walter Pellowski. The verdict was a five-sixths verdict. There had been a former trial and verdict for defendant. A new trial had been granted to the plaintiff on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The sole ground here presented for reversal of the order of the *573 trial court denying the motion for a second new trial is that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. It would serve no useful purpose here to recite the evidence presented for each of the parties. It is sufficient to say that there is direct conflict in the evidence as to which party purchased and owns the property. ’ The jury could have found either way. It is not for us to determine the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court and the jury, who see and hear the witnesses, are to determine their credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony. Whether the defendant and the witnesses called by him were worthy of belief, or the facts stated by them so inherently improbable as to be unworthy of belief, was primarily for the trial court and jury to determine. Johnson v. Finch, Van Slyck & McConville, 115 Minn. 252, 132 N. W. 276. After two trials, resulting in verdict each time for the defendant, the verdict of the jury here challenged, approved by the trial court, is entitled to great weight. Only in case the evidence for the prevailing party is clearly false or insufficient will this court reverse. We are satisfied that the evidence presented a question of fact for the jury as to the ownership of the property and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 N.W. 440, 196 Minn. 572, 1936 Minn. LEXIS 1011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pellowski-v-pellowski-minn-1936.

Opinion

I. M. Olsen, Justice.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack