Case ID: minn_140/html/0513-01.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

ELEANOR SHAUGHNESSEY AND OTHERS v. THOMAS WILLIAM SHAUGHNESSEY AND OTHERS.
    
    June 14, 1918.
    No. 21,025.
    Dismissal of appeal — second appeal.
    On former appeal it was held that the evidence would support a finding either way on the two issues tried, and new trial was granted for error in charge to jury. On second trial the same issues were submitted to the court on the record reviewed in former appeal and decision in favor of defendants. Motion to dismiss their appeal on the ground it was not taken in good faith granted. [Reporter.]
    After the former appeal reported in 135 Minn. 262, 160 N. W. 769, the case was tried upon the record made, upon the former appeal, Searles, Jr., who ordered judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Defendants appealed from the judgment entered pursuant to the order. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was not taken in good faith.
    Motion granted.
    
      Kueffner & Maries, for appellants.
    
      Thomas 0. Daggett, lor respondents.
    
      
      Reported in 167 N. W. 1046.
    
   Per Curiam.

On the former appeal it was held that the evidence in the record would support a finding either way upon the two controlling issues whether a deed was obtained from the grantor by means of undue influence, and whether there had been a delivery of the deed. For error in the instructions to the jury a new trial was granted. A new trial was had, and the two issues mentioned were submitted to the court upon the record reviewed in the former appeal, no new or additional testimony being adduced relative thereto. The court found against defendants on both issues. They again appealed, and plaintiifs move to dismiss on the ground that the appeal is not taken in good faith but only for the purpose' of delay.

In view of our previous review of the identical evidence upon which these decisive findings are based and the conclusion then reached, it would seem to be entirely clear that the present appeal must be wholly futile. The motion to dismiss is therefore granted.