Minnesota Supreme Court, 1875

Miller v. Lamb

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 21, 1875 · Berry

22 Minn. 43; 1875 Minn. LEXIS 17 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Olagett & Searles, for appellant., Wm. Hodgson and Seagrave Smith, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1896, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Cochrane v. West Duluth Industrial Construction & Improvement Co. (Minn. 1896)
Saunders v. James Gallagher (Minn. 1893)
Smith v. Barringer (Minn. 1887)
Woodcock v. Johnson (Minn. 1886)
Winslow v. Dakota Lumber Co. (Minn. 1884)
Roles v. Mintzer (Minn. 1880)
Schuek v. Hagar (Minn. 1877)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Berry, J.

Plaintiffs, being owners of four lots, which they had mortgaged to Trask to secure an indebtedness of $1,500.00, conveyed the same to defendant. What was the consideration of this conveyance was the important question in this case.

The agreement as to the consideration was verbal. The plaintiffs claimed, and adduced testimony tending to show, *44that the consideration was defendant’s agreement to “release them from the mortgage” — to pay the “mortgage debt.” Defendant denied this claim, alleging, and adducing testimony tending to show, that he bought the property, subject to the mortgage, for the sum of $100.00, which he paid to plaintiff Miller. For the purpose of supporting his allegation and testimony, and of attacking those of the plaintiffs, defendant offered to show the value of the property at the time of the conveyance, his purpose being to show that the value was far below the amount of the mortgage debt. The testimony offered for this purpose was rejected. It should have been received in accordance with the rule laid down in Kumler v. Ferguson, 7 Minn. 442, and reiterated in Schwerin v. De Graff, 21 Minn. 354. In the latter case the statement of the principle is, that “where there is no written contract, and the price (agreed) is disputed, any evidence tending to show that the testimony of one party is more reasonable than that of the other is admissible.”

The judgment and the order denying a new trial are accordingly reversed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.