TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kraemer v. Deustermann

Martin Kraemer v. Rudolph Deustermann

Kraemer v. Deustermann, 42 N.W. 297 (Minn. 1889)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 13, 1889
Judges
Gileillan
Citations
42 N.W. 29740 Minn. 4691889 Minn. LEXIS 138
Headnotes
Trial — Errors not Affecting Verdict. — Where it is manifest that a general verdict was rendered upon a particular theory of the facts, rulings and exceptions which could not in any way affect that theory will not be considered.
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.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gileillan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Gileillan, 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 a finding against the settlement, and there was nothing to impeach it. None of the assignments of error, even if otherwise well founded, relate to anything that could in any way affect the case, so far as the settlement was concerned, and it is unnecessary to consider them.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1899: 11906: 11914: 11924: 11974: 118992026peak 1899 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fowler v. Phœnix Insurance57 P. 421 (Or. 1899)
  2. Graham v. Coos Bay R. & N. Co.139 P. 337 (Or. 1914)
  3. O'Brien v. Royce227 P. 520 (Or. 1924)
  4. Payne v. McDonald528 P.2d 552 (Or. 1974)
  5. Milton v. Biesanz Stone Co.109 N.W. 999 (Minn. 1906)

Most recent

  1. Payne v. McDonald528 P.2d 552 (Or. 1974)
  2. O'Brien v. Royce227 P. 520 (Or. 1924)
  3. Graham v. Coos Bay R. & N. Co.139 P. 337 (Or. 1914)
  4. Milton v. Biesanz Stone Co.109 N.W. 999 (Minn. 1906)
  5. Fowler v. Phœnix Insurance57 P. 421 (Or. 1899)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list