Case Name: THOMAS WOLD v. CROOKSTON LUMBER COMPANY
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1911-11-17
Citations: 116 Minn. 524
Docket Number: Nos. 17,297—(114)
Parties: THOMAS WOLD v. CROOKSTON LUMBER COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 524–524

Head Matter:
THOMAS WOLD v. CROOKSTON LUMBER COMPANY.
November 17, 1911.
Nos. 17,297—(114).
Contract — evidence.
Action upon alleged contract for extra wages. Verdict in favor of plaintiff. Eeld: The verdict was sustained by the evidence, and there was no reversible error in the charge to the jury. [Reporter.]
Action begun in the municipal court of Bemidji to recover $36.25 under an agreement for extra wages in defendant’s saw mill during the season of 1910. There was a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $36.25. From judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, defendant appealed to the district court for Beltrami county where the case was tried before Stanton, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for the amount demanded. From an order denying defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, it appealed.
Affirmed.
3. 3. McDonald, for appellant.
John L. Brown, for respondent.
Reported in 133 N. W. 1135.

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam.
This action originated in the municipal court of the city of Bemidji, where the plaintiff recovered judgment for $36.25. The defendant appealed from the judgment to the district court of the county of Beltrami, where a jury trial was had and a verdict returned for the plaintiff for $36.25. The defendant appealed to this court from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
The plaintiff's claim was based upon an alleged contract whereby the defendant was to pay him for work in its mill twenty-five cents per day, in addition to his regular wages, if he worked during the season and until the mill closed. The issues were whether the parties made this contract and whether the plaintiff performed its terms on his part. The defendant here contends that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence and that the court erred in its instructions. The evidence is, within the rule applicable to such eases, sufficient to sustain the verdict, and we find no reversible error in the instructions to the jury-
Order affirmed.