Case ID: minn_155/html/0498-01.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

FRANK DAU v. FRED BURNHAM.
    
    April 6, 1923.
    No. 23,296.
    Sale of corn — verdict for plaintiff sustained — variance between date alleged and proved immaterial. [Reporter.]
    Action in justice court to- recover $50 for 150 shocks of corn. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appealed to the district court for Otter Tail county, where the appeal was heard by Parsons, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $53.40. From an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Jesse A. Schunk, for appellant.
    
      M. J. Daly, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 193 N. W. 33.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Appeal from an order denying defendant’s alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.

The complaint alleged a sale and delivery of corn and nonpayment of the purchase price. The answer was a general denial. The specific defense was that the corn had ibeen sol'd to a man named Gray instead of to the defendant. Our examination of the record has satisfied us that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the corn was sold to defendant and not to Gray and to support the verdict in plaintiff’s favor. This disposes of defendant’s principal contention upon this appeal.

The complaint alleged a sale in the month of October, 1920. The evidence was that the terms of sale were not agreed upon until a’bout a month later than the date alleged. This was an immaterial variance. Hayden v. Albee, 20 Minn. 143 (159); Pennington v. Roberge, 122 Minn. 295, 142 N. W. 710.

Order affirmed.