Case ID: minn_109/html/0526-01.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

INDEPENDENT BREWING ASSOCIATION v. C. B. BURT and Another.
    
    December 24, 1909.
    Nos. 16,312—(95).
    
    Appeal and Error.
    Where two actions between the same parties concerning the same transaction were tried together, and a new trial was granted in the action which set up a large counterclaim, the order of the court granting a new trial in the other action was affirmed. [Reporter]
    Action against C. B. Burt and Catherine Davis Burt in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $1,700 upon a promissory note signed by them. The answer alleged another action pending between the plaintiff and the defendant C. B. Burt, a stipulation that the two cases should be tried together, offered judgment against defendants for $700 or that said judgment be deducted from the amount which may be adjudged due C. B. Burt in the other action. The ease was tried before Dibell, J., who directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $700 and interest. From an order granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, defendants appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Miller & Clapp, for appellants.
    
      Austin Lathers, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 123 N. W. 934.
    
    
      
      Qctoher, 1909, term calendar.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Respondent commenced this action to recover on a promissory note of $1,700 executed by appellants. The trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict for respondent, less the sum of $1,000, which had been paid. The court granted a new trial, apparently for the reason, as appears from the memorandum attached to the order, that a new trial had been granted in the accompanying case of this respondent against appellant C. B. Burt, supra, page 323; and to await the result of that action.

It would seem that such action was satisfactory to the parties, and the order appealed from is accordingly affirmed.