Case Name: Mary Werner and Husband vs. Peter Schroeder and another
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1888-04-27
Citations: 38 Minn. 321
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Werner and Husband vs. Peter Schroeder and another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 321–322

Head Matter:
Mary Werner and Husband vs. Peter Schroeder and another.
April 27, 1888.
Order Granting New Trial.— Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 398, (434,) and succeeding decisions, followed, sustaining an order granting a new trial for insufficiency of evidence.
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Otter Tail county, Baxter, J., presiding, setting aside a verdict in their favor, and granting a new trial.
J. W. Mason and Wilson é Stearns, for appellants.
Baxter á Daly and Rawson & Houpt, for respondents.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The reasons which led the trial court to grant a new trial are not disclosed. The order should be affirmed, if it was justified upon any ground suggested by the record. It is fair to presume, from the case before us, that a new trial was allowed because, in the opinion of the trial judge, the evidence did not justify the verdict. The rule regulating the action of this court upon appeal, in such cases, has been stated in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 398, (434,) and reaffirmed and followed in numerous subsequent eases. The preponderance of the evidence in the case before us was not manifestly in favor of the verdict, and the order granting a new trial will be affirmed.
Mitchell, J., being absent, took no part in this decision.