Case Name: NORTHWESTERN MARBLE & TILE COMPANY v. OLOF SWENSON
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1919-12-19
Citations: 144 Minn. 466
Docket Number: No. 21,510
Parties: NORTHWESTERN MARBLE & TILE COMPANY v. OLOF SWENSON.
Judges: Holt, J., took no part.
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 466–467

Head Matter:
NORTHWESTERN MARBLE & TILE COMPANY v. OLOF SWENSON.
December 19, 1919.
No. 21,510.
Construction of building contract — verdict sustained.
Conflicting evidence whether contract required plaintiff to do certain tile work on a roof. Verdict for defendant. Held: The verdict must be sustained, because it is not clearly against the evidence and hals been approved by the trial court. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $2,657 for material and labor furnished in construction of a building for the University of Minnesota. The answer interposed a counterclaim for $1,400. The case was tried before Haupt, J., who at the close of the testimony denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying its motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
Affirmed.
A. B. Barelius, for appellant.
Kueffner é Marks, for respondent.
Reported in 175 N. W. 99.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The principal question presented on this appeal is whether the verdict of the jury is clearly against the evidence. The controversy in the ease centered around the terms of the building contract involved in the action, and whether plaintiff was thereby obligated to do a certain part of the tile work on the roof of the building, plaintiff insisting that the contract did not impose the particular work upon it, while defendant contended to the contrary. The terms of the contract were not clear, and extrinjsic evidence was presented by both parties. It was conflicting and presented a question of fact for the jury. The verdict is not clearly against the evidence, and must be sustained since it has been approved by the trial court. There were no errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence of a character to justify a new trial.
Order affirmed.
Holt, J., took no part.