Blied v. Barnard
Supreme Court of Minnesota
After the former appeal, reported in 116 Minn. 307, 133 N. W. 795, a new trial was had before Childress, J., and a jury which •returned a verdict that plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the return of the property described in the complaint, or to the sum •of $1,050, and answered the special questions submitted to them as .stated in the first paragraph of the opinion.
Read the full summary
After the former appeal, reported in 116 Minn. 307, 133 N. W. 795, a new trial was had before Childress, J., and a jury which •returned a verdict that plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the return of the property described in the complaint, or to the sum •of $1,050, and answered the special questions submitted to them as .stated in the first paragraph of the opinion. From an order denying defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, he appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, J.
After the decision in this case on the former appeal, reported in 116 Minn. 307, 133 N. W. 795, the new trial ordered was had. The trial court submitted the issues to the jury, and a verdict was rendered that plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the return of the property described in the complaint, or, “in case such return cannot be had, is entitled to the sum of $1,050.” The jury also returned answers to two special questions submitted to them, finding that: (1) The bond tendered by defendant to plaintiff February 12, 1910, was not “a good and sufficient bond;” and (2) plaintiff was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Blied v. BarnardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
3Cited by2 opinions
- Blied v. BarnardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- In Re Guardianship of HamptonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984