Case Name: CHRIS SANDERS v. ALBERT THIESEN
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1913-07-18
Citations: 122 Minn. 533
Docket Number: Nos. 18,106—(198)
Parties: CHRIS SANDERS v. ALBERT THIESEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 533–534

Head Matter:
CHRIS SANDERS v. ALBERT THIESEN.
July 18, 1913.
Nos. 18,106—(198).
Wort and labor — verdict sustained by evidence.
Held, the jury were justified in finding an implied promise to pay for work and labor. [Reporter].
Assignment of error.
Appeal from order denying a new trial. An assignment of error was not considered because the alleged error was not included in the motion for a new trial. [Reporter].
Action in the municipal court of Duluth to recover $275 for rent of an apartment for five months. The case was tried before Windom, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying plaintiff’s, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, he appealed' to the district court for that county, where the appeal was heard before Ensign,. Cant, Dibell and Dancer, JJ., who affirmed the order of the municipal court. From the order of affirmance, plaintiff appealed to this court.
Affirmed.
Courtney & Courtney, for appellant.
Clapp & Randall, for respondents.
Reported in 142 N. W. 1134.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This action was brought in the municipal court of Duluth to recover rent claimed to be due from defendant to plaintiff. Defendant interposed a counter claim for work and labor, the allegations of which plaintiff denied in his reply. The only question litigated on the trial was whether defendant was entitled to recover up.on this counterclaim. The jury by their verdict found for defendant, awarding to him a part of the amount claimed. Plaintiff moved for judgment or a new trial and appealed to the district court from an order denying the same, where the order was affirmed. Plaintiff then appealed to this court.
The only question presented is whether the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence. Our examination of the records leads to the conclusion that the verdict is sufficiently supported, and the order of the district court must be affirmed. The jury were justified in finding an implied promise to pay for the work and labor claimed to have been performed by defendant. The assignment of error challenging the admission of certain evidence is not considered, for the reason that the alleged error was not included in the motion for a new trial. The sole ground of that motion was the alleged insufficiency of the evidence.
Order affirmed.