Case Name: ROBERT McCUNE v. JOHN O. RYAN
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1923-03-29
Citations: 155 Minn. 494
Docket Number: No. 23,206
Parties: ROBERT McCUNE v. JOHN O. RYAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 494–495

Head Matter:
ROBERT McCUNE v. JOHN O. RYAN.
March 29, 1923.
No. 23,206.
Division of broker’s commission — verdict on question of fact will not be disturbed where evidence was conflicting.
Verdict rendered on conflicting evidence, and approved by the trial court, will not be set aside on appeal when no legal ground for such action. [Reporter.]
Exclusion of testimony not reviewed on appeal, when.
Error assigned in ruling excluding testimony of witness, to which no exception was taken at the trial or on the motion for new trial, will not be considered on appeal. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for Dakota county to recover $600 commission for sale of real estate. The case was tried before Converse, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
P. H. O’Keefe, for appellant.
Alfred E. Riets, for respondent.
Reported in 192 N. W. 941.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff claimed that an agreement was entered into with defendant under which each was to seek a purchaser for a farm listed for sale with defendant by the owner, and if either one was successful the commission would be shared equally. The next day defendant found a purchaser and received $1,300 as commission. Defendant's version of the agreement was that plaintiff was to share in the commission only if he produced the purchaser. The jury awarded plaintiff one-half of the commission. The main proposition on the appeal is that the verdict is not sustained. The agreement was oral and whether it was as asserted 'by plaintiff or by defendant was a pure question of fact. The verdict as rendered on conflicting testimony has been approved 'by the trial court, and we find no legal ground for disturbing the decision, even though we suspect that defendant's story was the one most likely to be true.
No consideration can be given the assignment of error to the ruling excluding the witness Iieinen's testimony, for exception thereto was neither taken at the trial, nor in the motion for a new trial.
The order is affirmed.