Schmidt v. Baumann

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Schmidt v. Baumann

30 N.W. 765, 36 Minn. 189, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 284

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 13, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 30 N.W. 765 (Schmidt v. Baumann) 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

Schmidt v. Baumann, 30 N.W. 765, 36 Minn. 189, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 284 (Mich. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

There is nothing in appellant’s first assignment of error. The respondent was entitled to prove that he had “procured a purchaser for the property, and the terms upon which he was willing to buy. The third assignment of error is predicated upon a mistake of fact. The court did not, in his charge to the jury, make any such assumption of facts as appellant claims. The second and fourth assignments of error are, in substance, one, viz., that the verdict is not justified by the evidence. The elaborate argument of counsel upon the facts would not be without force if addressed to the jury on the trial, or, perhaps, to the trial court on a motion for a new trial. But a reading of the entire record satisfies us that there was evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict. This being so, and the. [190]*190trial court having refused to grant a new trial, this court will, in accordance with its long-established rule, decline to interfere. We refrain from entering upon a discussion of the evidence, which could subserve no good purpose.

Order affirmed.

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

Mitchell, J.

There is nothing in appellant’s first assignment of error. The respondent was entitled to prove that he had “procured a purchaser for the property, and the terms upon which he was willing to buy. The third assignment of error is predicated upon a mistake of fact. The court did not, in his charge to the jury, make any such assumption of facts as appellant claims. The second and fourth assignments of error are, in substance, one, viz., that the verdict is not justified by the evidence. The elaborate argument of counsel upon the facts would not be without force if addressed to the jury on the trial, or, perhaps, to the trial court on a motion for a new trial. But a reading of the entire record satisfies us that there was evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict. This being so, and the. [190]*190trial court having refused to grant a new trial, this court will, in accordance with its long-established rule, decline to interfere. We refrain from entering upon a discussion of the evidence, which could subserve no good purpose.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 N.W. 765, 36 Minn. 189, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-baumann-minn-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack