Case Name: MARGARET MURRAY v. WILLIAM G. HOERR
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1900-11-13
Citations: 81 Minn. 340
Docket Number: Nos. 12,459—(222)
Parties: MARGARET MURRAY v. WILLIAM G. HOERR.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 81
Pages: 340–341

Head Matter:
MARGARET MURRAY v. WILLIAM G. HOERR.
November 13, 1900.
Nos. 12,459—(222).
Findings Sustained by Evidence.
Held, that the findings of fact of the court below are sustained by the evidence.
Action in the district court for Blue .Earth county. The complaint alleged that, in consideration of $400 paid by plaintiff, defendant agreed to sell, assign, transfer and deliver to her certain negotiable promissory notes executed by Thomas Murray to Thomas Rooney, aggregating exclusive of interest $1,800, and that defendant had refused to perform his contract or to repay the $400; and demanded judgment for $400 and interest. The case was tried before Severance, J., who found in favor of plaintiff. From an order, Cray, J., denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
W. B. Geddes, for appellant.
Frank Murray and A. J. O’Grady, for respondent.
Reported in 84 N. W. 42.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Tbis ease was tried by tbe court without a jury, and on its findings of fact judgment was ordered for tbe plaintiff. Tbe appeal is from an order denying a new trial.
Tbe dispute in tbe case was whether the plaintiff paid to tbe defendant $400 as part payment upon her husband's notes for an amount largely in excess of $400, as claimed by tbe defendant, or paid tbe $400 in full for tbe notes, which were to be delivered to her, as her property, as claimed by tbe plaintiff. Tbe evidence upon tbis point was conflicting, but, after a careful examination, we are obliged to say that there was an abundance to sustain tbe findings in plaintiff's favor. It is true that tbe finding on tbe main fact does not exactly correspond with tbe allegations of tbe complaint, but there was no substantial departure or variance in tbe proofs upon which tbis finding was based from such allegation.
As there was evidence to sustain tbe findings, tbe order appealed from must stand affirmed, in accordance with tbe well-established rule in such cases. It is so ordered.