Case Name: ANDREA RUSSO v. JOSEPH ALBERTO
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1915-05-28
Citations: 129 Minn. 437
Docket Number: Nos. 19,217-(139)
Parties: ANDREA RUSSO v. JOSEPH ALBERTO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
ANDREA RUSSO v. JOSEPH ALBERTO.
May 28, 1915.
Nos. 19,217-(139).
Sale.
Evidence examined and held insufficient to sustain the finding of the trial court that there was a sale of merchandise by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Action in the municipal court of St. Paul to recover $104.34. The case was tried before Einehout, J., who when plaintiff rested denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, made findings and ordered judgment against defendant Alberto. Erom an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant Alberto appealed.
Reversed.
N. E. Pardee and P. L. Solether, for appellant.
Keller & Loomis, for respondent.
Reported in 152 N. W. 833.

Opinion:
Dibell, C.
Action to recover for merchandise sold-to defendant Alberto and! another alleged to be copartners; trial to the court without a jury;: finding against Alberto for $104.34; appeal by Alberto from order denying his motion for a new trial.
The evidence came largely through interpreters and is in some confusion. At one time Alberto and his codefendant were apparently copartners in a small store. "When there they dealt with the plaintiff. The store business amounted to nothing and Alberto quit and went to work on the railroad. It does not seem that he put any money into- the business and the arrangement between the two de fendants is quite indefinite. His so-called partner afterwards moved a few blocks along tbe street to a new location and put Alberto's name in a copartnership sign. When Alberto discovered this he protested and his codefendant promised not to make use of it. The goods for which claim is now made were sold at the new place. The testimony is that they were sent c. o. d. We have examined the evidence with painstaking care. The' only question is whether it is sufficient to sustain the finding of the trial court. It is not.
Order reversed.