Case ID: minn_101/html/0538-01.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

JOHN BOQUIST v. L. J. ENGSTROM.
    
    May 17, 1907.
    Nos. 15,122-(107).
    Action in the district court for Marshall county to recover $125 upon a promissory note. The case was tried before Watts, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of defendant. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, plaintiff appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Julius J. Olson and W. O. Braggam, for appellant.
    
      P. A. McClernan, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 111 N. W. 1132.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the judgment of the district court of the county of Marshall in an action to recover from the defendant on a promissory note of $125 made and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The execution of the note was admitted. The defense was that there was no consideration for the note and that its execution by the defendant was secured by the fraud and deception of the plaintiff and his father. The defendant had a verdict. The plaintiff made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, which was denied. Judgment was then entered upon the verdict.

The only question raised by the assignments of error is whether there is any evidence to support the verdict. Our conclusion, from a consideration of the record, is that the jury might well have returned a verdict for the plaintiff, but that the one they did find is not so manifestly against the weight of the ■evidence as to justify us in interfering with it.

Judgment affirmed.