Kraemer v. Deustermann
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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.
Read the full summary
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.
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, 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…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Fowler v. Phœnix InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1899
- Graham v. Coos Bay R. & N. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1914
- O'Brien v. RoyceOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Milton v. Biesanz Stone Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Payne v. McDonaldOregon Supreme Court · 1974