TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Interior Lumber Co. v. O'Dowd

INTERIOR LUMBER COMPANY v. JOHN J. O'DOWD

Interior Lumber Co. v. O'Dowd, 169 N.W. 790 (Minn. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 20, 1918
Docket
No. 21,114
Citations
169 N.W. 790141 Minn. 4981918 Minn. LEXIS 429
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Verdict sustained by evidence. Action for merchandise sold. Defense, overcharge and dispute as to two items. Verdict for $31 in favor of plaintiff. Appeal from order denying motion for a new trial. Held: The verdict was sustained by the evidence. [Reporter.]
Summary
Action in the district court for Scott county to recover a balance of $28.30 for merchandise sold and delivered. The defense is stated in the opinion. The case was tried before Tifft, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for $31.09. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant 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

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

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover the sum of $28.30, alleged to be the balance due plaintiff from defendant upon an account for lumber sold.

Defendant sought to escape liability on the ground that he had been charged for more lumber than he received, the alleged overcharge being the amount here in controversy, and upon the further ground that there was a dispute as to two small items in plaintiff’s bill and that plaintiff agreed to receive in full payment and satisfaction of its claim $677.95', which sum defendant paid and plaintiff accepted.

There was a verdict for plaintiff and a motion for a new trial, which was denied. The appeal is from the order denying such motion. The evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict and we find that no errors of law occurred at the trial.

Order affirmed.

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