Oevermann v. Loebertmann
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Wright county, Smith, J., refusing a new trial after a verdict for plaintiff for $1,256.90. A mere payment on account does not establish a new point from which the statute of limitations begins to run. 2 Wood, Lim.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Wright county, Smith, J., refusing a new trial after a verdict for plaintiff for $1,256.90. A mere payment on account does not establish a new point from which the statute of limitations begins to run. 2 Wood, Lim. A.ct, § 232. See Brisbin v. Farmer, 16 Minn. 186 (215); Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28; Young v. Perkins, 29 Minn. 173. A simple part payment even by a debtor to his creditor is not evidence that there is more due, nor is it evidence alone of a promise to pay the balance of a debt. Smith v. St. Paul, 56 Minn. 202. In…
1Opinion of the CourtBuck, J.
The evidence in this case, if admissible under the complaint, is ample to sustain the verdict. It is' contended that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and, as it is quite brief, we quote the same, viz.:
“For his complaint herein, the plaintiff alleges: That on the 1st day of September, 1888, at the county of Wright, in said state, he lent to defendant, at his special instance and request, the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000). That the defendant has not paid the same, or any part thereof, except as follows: In December, 1888, $400; in July, 1889,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cole v. CurtisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1870
- Taylor v. FosterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lufkin v. HarveySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Walsh v. Mankato Oil Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1937