Case Name: Martin Kraemer vs. Rudolph Deustermann
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1889-05-13
Citations: 40 Minn. 469
Docket Number: 
Parties: Martin Kraemer vs. Rudolph Deustermann.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 469–469

Head Matter:
Martin Kraemer vs. Rudolph Deustermann.
May 13, 1889.
Trial — Errors not Affecting Verdict. — Where it is manifest that a general verdict was rendered upon a particular theory of the facts, rulings and exceptions which could not in any way affect that theory will not be considered.
After the decision on a former appeal, sustaining the complaint as against a demurrer, (see 37 Minn. 469, where the substance of the complaint is stated,) the defendant answered, alleging (among other things) claims in his favor against plaintiff to the amount of $470, and a settlement and accounting between the parties prior to the bringing of the action, at which a sum was found due from plaintiff, which he afterwards paid. At the trial in the' district court for McLeod county, before Edson, J., defendant had a verdict. The plaintiff appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
B. H. McClelland, for appellant.
Chas. C. Kolars, for respondent.

Opinion:
Gileillan, C. J.
This case appears to have been tried in a very scrambling way, but there is no reason to think the result was not what it ought to have been. The jury manifestly decided the case on the theory that, at the time defendant conveyed to plaintiff the 80-aere tract, the parties settled the differences between them in respect to the subject of the action and the counterclaims set up in the answer. The defendant testified to it positively, and he is not contradicted on the point, by plaintiff in such a manner as to seriously impair the effect of his testimony. It would have been difficult to sustain a finding against the settlement, and there was nothing to impeach it. None of the assignments of error, even if otherwise well founded, relate to anything that could in any way affect the case, so far as the settlement was concerned, and it is unnecessary to consider them.
Order affirmed.