Case ID: minn_39/html/0101-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gilfillan, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Neil McLachlan, Jr., and another vs. Mary Branch.
    July 3, 1888.
    Appeal — Review of Sufficiency of Evidence Oral or Written. — Humphrey v. Havens, 12 Minn. 196, (298,) to the effect that, in considering the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or finding of fact, the rule of decision is the same, whether the cause was tried on oral or written evidence, followed.
    Evidence held sufficient to sustain the finding of fact.
    Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for St. Louis county, where the action (brought under the statute, to determine the defendant’s adverse claim to real property) was tried by jStearns, J.
    
      •C. H. Benedict, for appellant.
    
      TI. J. Horn and W. W. Billson, for respondents.
   Gilfillan, C. J.

On appeal on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict or finding of fact, the mode of considering, and rule for deciding upon, the evidence is the same, whether the cause was tried in the court below upon written or oral evidence. This rule was established in the case of Humphrey v. Havens, 12 Minn. 196, (298;) and although not since expressed in any opinion except in Dayton v. Buford, 18 Minn. 111, (126,) it has always been acted upon by this court, and is too well established to be questioned. But whether we consider the case upon this rule, or consider it as though we were trying the issue of fact in the first instance, we see no reason to reverse the finding of the court below.

Judgment affirmed.