Case ID: minn_97/html/0537-01.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

POND & HASEY COMPANY v. C. M. WINSLOW and Another.
    
    April 20, 1906.
    Nos. 14,671—(56).
    Appeal by defendants from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, Waite, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a trial and findings in favor of plaintiff for $106.53.
    Affirmed.
    
      James D. Shearer and BeMen, Jamison & Shearer, for appellants.
    
      Jay W. Grane, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 106 N. W. 1133.
    
   PER CURIAM.

The principal question in this ease is whether the findings of the trial court are sustained by the evidence. The ruling excluding certain evidence offered by defendants was not error. The evidence upon the issue whether the purchase of the boiler, the value of which plaintiff seeks to recover, was absolute or conditional, was conflicting, presenting a question of fact for the trial court. The findings are not clearly against the evidence and must be sustained1.

Order affirmed.