Case ID: minn_122/html/0530-01.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

ANDREW A. MURPHY v. ERNEST L. KUNTZE and Others.
    
    July 3, 1913.
    Nos. 18,193—(218).
    New trial.
    The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a'new trial, after a verdict in favor of defendants. [Reporter].
    Action in the district court for Rice county for an accounting of the amount due upon the debt of defendant Kuntze to defendant Juaire and that, upon payment by plaintiff of the amount due, defendant Juaire be required to reconvey certain premises to plaintiff. The ease was tried before Childress, J., and a jury which returned an affirmative answer to the question whether the deed from the defendant Kuntze and his wife to defendant Juaire was intended by the parties to be- a sale of the property and returned a negative answer to a question whether the same deed was executed to be merely security for the payment of the debt. Prom an order granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, defendants appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      James P. McMahon, for appellants.
    
      Thomas S. Qwinn, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 142 N. W. 1134.
    
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s right to relief depended wholly on the question whether a conveyance of 65 acres of land made by one defendant to the other was a mortgage. The jury found that it was not a mortgage. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence did not support the verdict. The trial courts are in the exercise of a sound discretion when passing on a motion for a new trial. 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 7145. We are not prepared to hold that the court abused this discretion in granting a new trial. It is unnecessary to discuss the evidence, except to state that the unusual thing about the giving of the deed was that the seller gave the purchaser a promissory note in the amount mentioned as the consideration for the deed, and that there was an admitted understanding that if that sum was, within a certain time, paid by the seller to the purchaser a reconveyance should be made.

Order affirmed.