Reitan v. Goebel

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Reitan v. Goebel

42 N.W. 394, 40 Minn. 408, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 113

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Reitan v. Goebel. Read the opinion of the Court — 35 Minn. 384 →

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided May 1, 1889·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

The only question presented upon this appeal is as to whether the evidence justified the determination of the jury that, at the time of the execution of the. bond upon which this action is brought, the defendant Goebel had property which might have been [409]*409seized and appropriated to the satisfaction of a judgment which the plaintiff had recovered against her. An examination of the record satisfies ns that the evidence was sufficient, and that the order refusing a new trial should be affirmed.

Ordered accordingly.

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

By the Court.

The only question presented upon this appeal is as to whether the evidence justified the determination of the jury that, at the time of the execution of the. bond upon which this action is brought, the defendant Goebel had property which might have been [409]*409seized and appropriated to the satisfaction of a judgment which the plaintiff had recovered against her. An examination of the record satisfies ns that the evidence was sufficient, and that the order refusing a new trial should be affirmed.

Ordered accordingly.

Reitan v. Goebel, 42 N.W. 394, 40 Minn. 408, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 113 (Mich. 1889).

Pincite

42 N.W. 394 (Reitan v. Goebel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.