Case ID: minn_35/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gileillan, G. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peter Tantholt vs. Nels J. Ness.
    July 7, 1886.
    Evidence held sufficient to sustain findings of fact.
    Various objections to evidence held not well taken.
    Action by plaintiff, in the municipal court of St. Paul, to recover the value of work done by him in excavating for the foundation of a building and carrying away earth and stone therefrom, under a contract which he alleges he was prevented by defendant from performing. Answer that plaintiff, without excuse, abandoned the work, with a counterclaim for the expense incurred by defendant in completing the work, in excess of the contract price. A principal issue at the trial was as to the quantity of earth removed by plaintiff, to prove which the plaintiff testified, against defendant’s objection and exception, to the number of loads removed, and the average contents (one cubic yard) of each load. The plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
    
      White do Palmer, for appellant.
    
      C. D. O’Brien, for respondent.
   Gileillan, G. J.

There was sufficient evidence to sustain the vari ous findings of fact, and, on the findings of fact, the plaintiff was en titled to the judgment rendered. We see nothing in the exception to evidence on the trial. The objections to plaintiff’s testimony as to the number of loads of earth removed, and the average size of the loads, went rather to the weight to which the testimony was entitled than to its competency. The objection to plaintiff stating what it was reasonably worth to complete the work after he left it, seems based on the idea that, in arriving at what plaintiff was to recover, what it actually cost defendant, whether reasonably or not, was to be taken into account, whereas, if the cost of what remained to be done after plaintiff left could be considered at all, it could only be the reasonable cost, i. e., what it was reasonably worth.

Judgment affirmed.