Case ID: minn_108/html/0517-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Peb Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MINNEAPOLIS THRESHING MACHINE COMPANY v. FRIEDRICH PETERS and Another.
    
    May 7, 1909.
    Nos. 16,115—(88).
    Action in the district court for Swift county to recover $500 upon a promissory note. The case was tried before Qvale, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      John I. Davis and Thomas E. Davis, for appellant.
    
      Young & MeElligott, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 120 N. W. 1134.
    
   Peb Curiam.

Plaintiff and respondent brought action against defendant and appellant to recover on a promissory note. The defense interposed and submitted to the jury was that plaintiff’s agent, Curtiss, had induced defendant to sign a note by fraud. The jury returned a verdict for defendant. The court granted a new trial because of the insufficiency of the evidence. The briefs of counsel suggest that the issue was erroneously limited to fraud. The assignments of error, however, present as the only question, whether the court abused its discretion in granting a new trial upon the evidence which the record presents. That record discloses a controversy between the two defendants on the one side, and the agent of plaintiff, Curtiss, on the other side. The ease is of a type frequently presented. The record discloses no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.