Case Name: Town of Ripley vs. John Demars et al.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1892-11-12
Citations: 51 Minn. 268
Docket Number: 
Parties: Town of Ripley vs. John Demars et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
Town of Ripley vs. John Demars et al.
Argued by appellants, submitted on briefs by respondent, Nov. 1, 1892.
Decided Nov. 12, 1892.
Findings of fact held supported by the evidence.
Appeal by defendants, John Demars and J. M. Brown, from an order of the District Court of Morrison County, Searle, J., made January 30, 1892, refusing a new trial.
In January, 1884, John Demars recovered a judgment in the District Court of Morrison County, against the supervisors of the Town of Eipley, for the sum of $157.13, as damages for the laying out of a certain highway in that town. The plaintiff, the Town of Eipley, brought this action against the defendants, Demars and Brown, who had purchased the judgment, to compel a satisfaction thereof, alleging that an agreement was made between Demars and the supervisors of the town to the effect that the town should abandon the highway and pay Demars $50.00, and that Demars would satisfy the judgment and donate another designated strip of land for highway purposes. Findings were made in plaintiff’s favor, and defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
A. P. Blanchard, for appellants,
Taylor, Calhoun é Rhodes, for respondent.

Opinion:
Gileillan, C. J.
The action is to have adjudged satisfied a judgment recovered by Demars against the supervisors of the town of Bipley for his damages and costs for laying out a road through his farm upon appeal to the district court. The complaint alleges what amounts to an accord and satisfaction, viz., that it was agreed between Demars and the town that the latter should pay him $50, abandon the proceedings to lay out the road, and lay out another road along the side of his farm, and he should accept that in release of his claim, and that the $50 was paid, the contemplated road through the farm abandoned, and another laid out along the side of the farm. On a trial without a jury the court below found the facts, substantially as so alleged.
The appellants contend there was no evidence to support the findings as to the agreement. .The testimony was somewhat indefinite, as might be expected of witnesses testifying to conversations seven or eight years after they occurred, but we think it was enough to support the finding.
We do not see anything in any of the other points made by appellants.
Order affirmed.
(Opinion published 53 N. W. Rep. 543.)