Case ID: minn_142/html/0502-01.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

K. F. LONG v. J. J. CONN, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF R. A. GRAVES, DECEASED.
    
    May 23, 1919.
    No. 21,253.
    Executor and administrator — want of consideration for decedent’s note — question for jury.
    Claim against testator’s estate on his promissory note. Defense that there was no consideration for it. Verdict for claimant directed by the court. Appeal from order granting executor’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the direction of the verdict was not justified .by the evidence and was contrary to law. Held: Sufficient evidence was presented to require submission of the issue of want of consideration to the jury. [Reporter.]
    
      From an order of the probate court for Big Stone county disallowing the' claim of K. F. Long against the estate of R. A. Graves, deceased, K. F. Long appealed to the district court for that county.' The appeal was heard by Flaherty, J., who at the close of the testimony granted claimant’s motion for a directed verdict in his favor, for $1,276.34. From an order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial, K. F. Long appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Cliff & Purcell, for appellant.
    
      Charles E. Chrisman and Ray G. Farrington, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 172 N. W. 958.
    
   PEB CURIAM.

Appellant presented to the probate court for allowance, a claim against the estate of deceased, based on a promissory note of $1,000, decedent being the maker and appellant the payee thereof. From an order disallowing the claim, an appeal was taken to the district court, where there was a trial by jury. The defense was that there was no eonsideraiton for the note. At the close of the evidence, the court, on appellant’s motion, directed a verdict in his favor. Thereafter respondent moved for a new trial, on the ground that the court erred in directing the verdict and that the same was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law. The case is here on appeal from an order granting the motion.

The sole question presented is whether respondent produced sufficient evidence to require the submission to the jury of the issue of want of consideration. A careful examination of the record has led us to the conclusion that he did and that the court was right in granting the motion for a new trial. In view of the fact that the case is to be tried again, we refrain from commenting on the evidence.

Order affirmed.