Case Name: RICHARD L. OWENS v. HENRY LEVINE AND OTHERS
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1925-06-26
Citations: 164 Minn. 519
Docket Number: No. 24,872
Parties: RICHARD L. OWENS v. HENRY LEVINE AND OTHERS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 164
Pages: 519–520

Head Matter:
RICHARD L. OWENS v. HENRY LEVINE AND OTHERS.
June 26, 1925.
No. 24,872.
John N. Berg, for appellant.
Arthur H. Anderson and W. S. Ervin, for respondent.
Reported in 204 N. W. 629.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
I of the city of Minneapolis awarding him the possession of the premises in [controversy. Immediately thereafter plaintiff brought this action in the [district court to enjoin further proceedings under the judgment of the [municipal court, and applied for a temporary injunction restraining de-pendant from enforcing that judgment during the pendency of this action. The court denied the application for a temporary injunction and discharged ' the restraining order theretofore issued. Plaintiff appealed. Defendant obtained a judgment against plaintiff in the municipal court
I Plaintiff had occupied the premises in controversy under a written lease ior a term of 5 years which expired on March 1, 1925; and the action for possession was based on the claim that he was unlawfully withholding possession after the expiration of his term. Plaintiff bases his action for in injunction on the claim that after entering into the written lease he nade an oral agreement with the lessor whereby he was to make certain improvements on the premises in addition to those provided for in the lease and in consideration thereof was to have an additional term of 5 years. He asserts that he made the specified improvements at a large expense in reliance upon this oral agreement, and in substance asks for the specific performance of it.
Whether a temporary injunction shall be granted rests so largely in the discretion of the trial court, that this court interferes only when necessary to prevent manifest injustice. While plaintiff asserts the making of the oral agreement and the making of the additional improvements, the decided weight of the evidence is to the effect that neither the alleged oral agreement nor the alleged additional improvements were ever made. The record fully justified the ruling of the learned trial court, and its order is affirmed.