Case ID: minn_131/html/0492-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PHILOMENE BISSONETT v. ANTOINE BISSONETT.
    
    November 26, 1915.
    Nos. 19,437—(89).
    Appeal and error — review of evidence.
    Action to reform a deed. Judgment for defendant. Upon an appeal from an order denying a new trial this court will not consider and determine de novo questions of fact raised by the conflicting evidence of the parties. [Reporter.]
    Action in the district court for Hennepin county to reform a deed to certain premises and for an accounting of the rents and profits received from the 'property. The case was tried before Molyneaux, J., who made findings and ordered judgment' in favor of defendant. From an order denying her motion for a new trial and from the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, plaintiff appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Herbert T. Park, for appellant.
    
      John -P. Nash a,nd William, M. Nash, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 154 N. W. 943-
    
   Pee Curiam.

Appellant makes no assignments of error and raises no questions of law, but merely discusses the weight and effect of the evidence. The trial court found against her upon the facts, and the evidence is ample to sustain such findings; in fact no claim is made that there is not evidence to support them. Apparently the appeal is presented upon the theory that this court will consider and determine the case de novo, and solve anew the questions of fact to which the conflicting evidence of the parties gave rise. Such is not the province of this court.

Order affirmed.