TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Russo v. Alberto

ANDREA RUSSO v. JOSEPH ALBERTO

Russo v. Alberto, 152 N.W. 833 (Minn. 1915)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 28, 1915
Docket
No. 19,217-(139)
Judges
Dibell
Citations
152 N.W. 833129 Minn. 4371915 Minn. LEXIS 730
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Sale. Evidence examined and held insufficient to sustain the finding of the trial court that there was a sale of merchandise by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Summary
Action in the municipal court of St. Paul to recover $104.34. The case was tried before Einehout, J., who when plaintiff rested denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, made findings and ordered judgment against defendant Alberto. Erom an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant Alberto appealed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Dibell

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

Dibell, C.

Action to recover for merchandise sold-to defendant Alberto and! another alleged to be copartners; trial to the court without a jury;: finding against Alberto for $104.34; appeal by Alberto from order denying his motion for a new trial.

The evidence came largely through interpreters and is in some confusion. At one time Alberto and his codefendant were apparently copartners in a small store. "When there they dealt with the plaintiff. The store business amounted to nothing and Alberto quit and went to work on the railroad. It does not seem that he put any money into- the business and the arrangement between the two de *438 fendants is quite indefinite. His so-called partner afterwards moved a few blocks along tbe street to a new location and put Alberto’s name in a copartnership sign. When Alberto discovered this he protested and his codefendant promised not to make use of it. The goods for which claim is now made were sold at the new place. The testimony is that they were sent c. o. d. We have examined the evidence with painstaking care. The' only question is whether it is sufficient to sustain the finding of the trial court. It is not.

Order reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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