Case ID: minn_153/html/0424-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Dibell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FINCH, VAN SLYCK & McCONVILLE v. STEPHEN SINGER, Etc.
    
    November 17, 1922.
    No. 23,128.
    Verdict for purchase price of goods sustained.
    In an action to recover the .balance claimed to be due on a sale of merchandise the evidence is held to sustain the verdict for the plaintiff.
    Action in the district court for Pennington county to recover a balance of $190.21 due on a sale of merchandise. Defendant interposed a counterclaim for $300. The case was tried before Grindeland, J., who at the close of the testimony dismissed the action as to Edward Singer on the ground that he was not a proper party to the action, and a jury which returned a verdict for $193.54. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, Stephen Singer appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Theo. Quale, for appellant.
    O. A. Naplin and TV. R. Olson, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 190 N. W. 602.
    
   Dibell, J.

Action to recover a balance due on the sale of merchandise. There was a verdict for the plaintiff and the defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The plaintiff offered evidence to show that between February 3, 1919, and October 9, 1920, it sold to the defendant merchandise of the value of $3,638.24, on which there was due $190.21. The evidence was sufficient. The defendant admitted the amount of the merchandise sold, denied that there was a balance due, and counterclaimed for damages for delay in delivery. The ruling of the trial court was against the counterclaim and it is not presented for review. At the trial the defendant claimed that there were overcharges of interest in the account, and that he had paid the plaintiff in full. The trial court painstakingly tried the case and presented it to the jury. The jury found for the plaintiff the amount demanded. The verdict ends the controversy.

Order affirmed.