Case Name: JOHN H. NOVOTNY v. LAWRENCE RYNDA
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1917-07-06
Citations: 137 Minn. 479
Docket Number: Nos. 20,303— (124)
Parties: JOHN H. NOVOTNY v. LAWRENCE RYNDA.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
JOHN H. NOVOTNY v. LAWRENCE RYNDA.
July 6, 1917.
Nos. 20,303— (124).
Verdict — evidence.
Action for price of lumber sold. Issue as to number of feet. Held: Verdict was sustained by the evidence. [Reporter.]
Appeal and error — new trial — substantial justice.
Where rulings on the admission of documentary evidence and in permitting witnesses to use certain memoranda to refresh their recollection may have been technically erroneous, but the plaintiff’s claim for $56 appears' just and any insufficiency in the foundation laid could be remedied on another trial, the supreme court will not place the burden of a new trial on the litigants, because the case should end. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for Le Sueur county to recover $56.10 balance claimed to be due for lumber sold and delivered. The case was tried before Morrison, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $56.23. Prom an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
Charles C. Kolars, for appellant.
Moonan & Moonan, for respondent.
Reported in 163 N. W. 1070.

Opinion:
Peb Cubiam.
Action to recover a balance of $56.10 alleged to be owing by defendant on a bill of lumber sold him by plaintiff. The sole issue on the' trial was as to the number of feet of lumber delivered. The jury found for the plaintiff, and defendant appealed from an order refusing a new trial.
Defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and various rulings on the admission of evidence. We have examined the record and think the verdict should stand. Some of the rulings complained of may have been technically erroneous, but we have been unable to discover any probability that defendant was prejudiced. The errors, if there were any, were in admitting certain documentary evidence and in permitting plaintiff's witnesses to use certain memoranda to refresh their recollections. It is apparent that any insufficiency in the foundation laid could be remedied on another trial, and we ought not to place this burden on the litigants. Plaintiff seems to have a just claim, and the case should end.
Order affirmed.