Union Cash Register Co. v. John

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Union Cash Register Co. v. John

52 N.W. 48, 49 Minn. 481, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 205

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 5, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 52 N.W. 48 (Union Cash Register Co. v. John) 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

Union Cash Register Co. v. John, 52 N.W. 48, 49 Minn. 481, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 205 (Mich. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

The only objection that can fairly be suggested to the testimony specified in the first, third, and fourth assignments of.error, to wit, that it would contradict or vary the written contract between the parties, (assuming the order introduced in evidence to be a contract,) was not expressed in the objections made at the trial. The general objections that the testimony was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and inadmissible under the pleadings would not necessarily present to the mind of the court the proposition that the testimony tended to contradict or vary the written evidence already introduced, and that it was for that reason objected to. But, even were the objection sufficiently explicit, so that the court erred in overruling it, the error would be immaterial, in view of the fact found, that the parties mutually rescinded the contract, the testimony objected to not being directed to proof of that fact, but to proof only of a warranty when the contract of sale was made.

The fifth assignment of error will not be considered, because it does not attempt to comply with the rule which requires an assignment that a finding of fact is not sustained by evidence to “specify particularly the finding complained of.” An assignment that “the evidence does not sustain the findings of fact,” thus covering several findings, is not a compliance with the rule.

Order affirmed.

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

The only objection that can fairly be suggested to the testimony specified in the first, third, and fourth assignments of.error, to wit, that it would contradict or vary the written contract between the parties, (assuming the order introduced in evidence to be a contract,) was not expressed in the objections made at the trial. The general objections that the testimony was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and inadmissible under the pleadings would not necessarily present to the mind of the court the proposition that the testimony tended to contradict or vary the written evidence already introduced, and that it was for that reason objected to. But, even were the objection sufficiently explicit, so that the court erred in overruling it, the error would be immaterial, in view of the fact found, that the parties mutually rescinded the contract, the testimony objected to not being directed to proof of that fact, but to proof only of a warranty when the contract of sale was made.

The fifth assignment of error will not be considered, because it does not attempt to comply with the rule which requires an assignment that a finding of fact is not sustained by evidence to “specify particularly the finding complained of.” An assignment that “the evidence does not sustain the findings of fact,” thus covering several findings, is not a compliance with the rule.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 N.W. 48, 49 Minn. 481, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-cash-register-co-v-john-minn-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack