Ratelle v. Sieben

Defendants appeal from a post-trial order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, contending (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s special verdict consisting of its answers to five questions raised by disputed facts; and (2) that the court committed reversible error in its jury instructions, in failing to allow defendant Neil A. Sieben to express his opinion of the value of defendants’ property, and in failing to find the oral agreement for plaintiff’s legal services -unenforceable under the statute of frauds.

Defendants petitioned…