Case Name: H. H. ADAIR v. GEORGE E. DUTTON
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1913-06-13
Citations: 122 Minn. 524
Docket Number: Nos. 18,019—(143)
Parties: H. H. ADAIR v. GEORGE E. DUTTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 524–525

Head Matter:
H. H. ADAIR v. GEORGE E. DUTTON.
June 13, 1913.
Nos. 18,019—(143).
Verdict sustained Tby evidence.
Action for labor in sinking a well. Verdict for plaintiff. Appeal from an order denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Held: The evidence was sufficient to justify submitting the case to the jury and to sustain the verdict. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for Lyon county to recover $110 for work and labor. The facts are stated in the opinion. The case was tried before Olsen, J., who denied defendant’s motion to direct a verdict in his favor, and a jury which returned a verdict for $121.27 in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial,, he appealed.
Affirmed.
Robinson é English, for appellant.
James Von Williams, for respondent.
Reported in 141 N. W. 1134.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Action to recover $110 and interest, the price of a well constructed by plaintiff for defendant. The defense was that the agreement was for a 3-ineh well,, while the well constructed was only a 2-inch one, and that, as completed by plain tiff, it did not furnish sufficient water for defendant's uses, thus breaching a warranty in that respect alleged. The reply was a general denial. The issues thus framed were tried to a jury, and a verdict for plaintiff was rendered. Defendant .appeals from an order denying his motion in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
The assignments of error raise but one question, the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the submission of the case to the jury, and to warrant the verdict in defendant's favor.
We have examined the evidence, and find it conflicting on both issues. It is entirely clear that there is no ground upon which this court can disturb the verdict. There is certainly sufficient evidence to sustain it.
Order affirmed.