Case ID: minn_124/html/0532-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SULLIVAN LUMBER COMPANY v. EDNA THORN.
    
    December 26, 1913.
    Nos. 18,367 — (226).
    New trial.
    Action on promissory note. Counterclaim for • services. Substantial verdict in favor of defendant. New trial granted, because due weight was not given to the presumption arising from the giving of the note and the verdict was not justified by the evidence. [Reporter.]
    Action in the district court for Traverse county to recover $159.20 upon a promissory note. The case was tried before Plaherty, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant for $330.50. Prom an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, it appealed.
    Reversed and new trial granted.
    
      D. J. Leary, for appellant.
    
      F. W. Murphy, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 144 N. W. 1135.
    
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiff brought action on a promissory note. Defendant admitted the note, but counterclaimed the value of services alleged to have been rendered to plaintiff. She recovered a verdict of $330.50. The only question in the case is, does the evidence sustain this verdict. We have examined the evidence in this case with care. A majority of the court are of the opinion that due weight was not given to the presumption arising from the giving of the note (Beneke v. Beneke, 119 Minn. 441, 138 N. W. 689), and that the verdict is not justified by the evidence, and that a new trial should be granted.

Order reversed and new trial granted.