S. Bader & Sons v. Gensler

255 N.W. 97, 191 Minn. 571, 1934 Minn. LEXIS 820
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMay 18, 1934
DocketNo. 29,867.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 255 N.W. 97 (S. Bader & Sons v. Gensler) 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
S. Bader & Sons v. Gensler, 255 N.W. 97, 191 Minn. 571, 1934 Minn. LEXIS 820 (Mich. 1934).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant has appealed from an adverse judgment rendered in the municipal court of Minneapolis.

Action was brought to recover a claimed balance of $75 upon an account. The defendant admitted the account but pleaded two defenses, namely, (1) a settlement of the claimed balance by reason of returning to plaintiff’s agent a certain garment previously sold by plaintiff to defendant and which was claimed to be imperfect, and that the plaintiff accepted a return of the garment as a credit upon the account in the amount of $75, thereby settling the same; (2) that plaintiff in selling the garment aforesaid falsely represented that it was of first-class quality and would wear well, but that the same, instead of being a first-class garment, was defective and unfit for any useful purpose.

It will thus be seen that the issues relate to facts only. The court having heard the evidence adduced, the garment too being in court and duly inspected, found against defendant’s contentions, so the sole issue for us to determine is whether or not the evidence is such as to require a holding that the trial court was in error. That court was charged with the duty and responsibility of passing upon and determining the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence.

We conclude that it would not be of advantage to the litigants or to the bar further to discuss this case. Suffice to say that a careful review of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the trial court was justified in reaching the conclusion it did and that the judgment should be and hereby is affirmed.

DEV ANEY, Chief. Justice, absent in attendance upon pardon board, took no part.

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

Related

Gaertner v. Rees
107 N.W.2d 365 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1961)
Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc.
74 N.W.2d 305 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1955)
Volding v. Harnish
51 N.W.2d 658 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1952)
Lund v. First National Bank & Trust Co.
15 N.W.2d 426 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1944)
In Re Estate of Lund
15 N.W.2d 426 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1944)
Midland Co-Operative Wholesale v. Range Co-Operative Oil Ass'n
274 N.W. 624 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1937)
In Re Trusteeship Under Last Will of Melgaard
274 N.W. 641 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1937)
Markert v. Magee
274 N.W. 174 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1937)
Liederbach v. Pickett
273 N.W. 77 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 N.W. 97, 191 Minn. 571, 1934 Minn. LEXIS 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-bader-sons-v-gensler-minn-1934.