Case Name: O. K. HAUGEN AND ANOTHER v. PAUL KING
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1917-11-02
Citations: 138 Minn. 479
Docket Number: No. 20,562
Parties: O. K. HAUGEN AND ANOTHER v. PAUL KING.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 479–479

Head Matter:
O. K. HAUGEN AND ANOTHER v. PAUL KING.
November 2, 1917.
No. 20,562.
Appeal and error — review.
Action on promissory note. The court found the facts against defendant’s defense. The findings are sustained. The facts being against him the questions of law raised by him cannot' be considered on appeal. [Reporter.]
Action in the municipal court of Mankato to recover $25 upon a promissory note. The case was tried before Plymat, J., who made findings and ordered judgment for $37.38. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
L. L. Larson, for appellant.
C. O. Bailey, for respondents.
Reported in 164 N. W. 991.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This action was brought to recover upon a promissory note alleged to have been made by defendant in payment of goods purchased from plaintiff. The answer put in issue the making of the note, pleaded the infancy of defendant and the statute of limitations. The court found the facts against defendant, and the only question before the court on the appeal is whether the evidence supports the findings. The evidence returned in the record is sufficient. It requires no discussion. And since the facts are found adversely to defendant the questions of law raised by him cannot be considered. They are all predicated upon the facts as pleaded in the answer, which are wholly eliminated from the case by the findings.
Judgment affirmed.