Case ID: minn_57/html/0129-01.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

Hannora Lytle vs. Nathan W. Prescott et al.
    
    Submitted on briefs April 4, 1894.
    Affirmed April 20, 1894.
    No. 8658.
    Assignments of error.
    Assignments of error held bad.
    Appeal by defendants, Nathan W. Prescott and John H. Doran, from an order of the Municipal Court of the City of St. Paul, John Twohy, Jr., J., made September 8, 1893, denying their motion for a new trial.
    John Olson bought of Nathan Ford Music Co., August 19, 1891, a music box in rosewood case for $80 and gave his note for that sum and signed a contract that the instrument should remain the property of the vendors until the note should be paid. He after-wards paid $42 on the note. On December 17, 1892, Olson borrowed of the plaintiff, Hannora Lytle, $22 and gave her a mortgage on the music box to secure repayment. On April 4, 1.893, Olson pawned the music box to the defendants for $13.55. They kept a pawnbroker’s shop. On April 9, 1893, plaintiff demanded the property, and commenced this action April 11, to recover possession by virtue of her mortgage. A jury was waived. The court made findings of fact and ordered judgment for plaintiff that she recover the property and in case she could not obtain possession then for $22 and interest the value of her mortgage interest with costs. Defendants moved for a new trial but were denied and they appealed. In this court they assigned errors as follows:
    First. The finding of the court is not justified by the evidence and is contrary to law. Second. There is no evidence in this case to establish the damages as found by the court. Third. Court erred in denying defendants’ motion for new trial.
    
      B. F. Latta, for appellants.
    
      John W. Best, for respondent.
   Gilfillan, C. J.

Of the three assignments of error the first and third are bad under the rules, — the first, because it does not show whether it is taken to the court’s findings of fact or its conclusion of law, and, if to the findings of fact, it does not show to which of them (there being several); the third, because it assigns as error the denial of the motion for a new trial, without specifying to which of the several points made by the motion the assignment applies. There is no merit in the second assignment of error. There was evidence to sustain the finding referred to in it. Order affirmed.

Buck, J., absent, sick, took no part.

(Opinion published 58 N. W. 688.)