Case Name: GEORGE R. WHITNEY v. O. W. KERR COMPANY
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1911-01-13
Citations: 113 Minn. 525
Docket Number: Nos. 16,953—(197)
Parties: GEORGE R. WHITNEY v. O. W. KERR COMPANY.
Judges: Jaggard and Simpson, JJ., took no part.
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 525–526

Head Matter:
GEORGE R. WHITNEY v. O. W. KERR COMPANY.
January 13, 1911.
Nos. 16,953—(197).
Appeal and error.
In an action to recover a broker’s commission for the sale of land, the evidence was not so manifestly against the verdict in favor of plaintiff as to warrant reversal by this court, on the ground the action of the trial court in denying a new trial was an abuse of discretion. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $480 as commission at the agreed rate for finding a customer for land sold by defendant. The case was tried before Holt, J., and a jury which returned a verdict In favor of plaintiff for the amount demanded. From an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, it appealed.
Affirmed.
ICoon, Whelan & Hempstead, for appellant.
Stenxwt & Brower, for respondent.
Reported in 129 N. W. 1056.

Opinion:
Per Ouriam.
Action to recover commission for procuring a purchaser for certain real estate held for sale by defendant. Plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant appealed from an order denying a new trial.
The only question presented is whether the evidence is so clearly and palpably against the verdict as to render the action of the trial court in denying a new trial an abuse of discretion. Whether plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale for which he claims a commission is a close one upon the evidence, as it appears in cold type. The jury passed upon .the evidence, found for plaintiff, and the trial court approved their verdict. We have carefully read the record, and, within the rule guiding this court in such cases, are not prepared to hold that the evidence is so manifestly against the verdict as to justify interference with the order of the court below. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss the evidence.
Order affirmed.
Jaggard and Simpson, JJ., took no part.