Scofield v. Walrath
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action upon a promissory note, brought in tbe municipal court of Minneapolis by tbe payee aginst the maker. Defence that the note was given to the plaintiff solely for his accommodation and without any consideration. Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial. The settled case upon which the motion for a new trial was made does not purport to contain all the evidence.
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
As the settled case does not purport to contain all the evidence, it is impossible for us to say that the “newly-dis-discovered” evidence would, in connection with the other evidence, be likely to affect the result in a second trial, (Lampsen v. Brander, 28 Minn. 526; 11 N. W. Rep. 94,) or that it is not merely cumulative. We cannot say, therefore, that the trial court departed from a fair exercise of its judicial discretion upon application for new trials on the ground of such evidence.
As to the questions asked the witness Kinney, which are referred to in the first, second, and third…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lampsen v. BranderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Austin v. RobertsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nichols & Shepard Co. v. WiedemannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Tierney v. Graves Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Germain v. Great Northern Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919