McLachlan v. Branch

Minnesota Supreme Court
McLachlan v. Branch, 39 Minn. 101 (Minn. 1888)
38 N.W. 703
Gilfillan

Can I rely on this case?

Yes — no negative treatment found

Based on 2 citing opinions

Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.

McLachlan v. Branch

Opinion of the Court

Gilfillan, C. J.

On appeal on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict or finding of fact, the mode of considering, and rule for deciding upon, the evidence is the same, whether the cause was tried in the court below upon written or oral evidence. This rule was established in the case of Humphrey v. Havens, 12 Minn. 196, (298;) and although not since expressed in any opinion except in Dayton v. Buford, 18 Minn. 111, (126,) it has always been acted upon by this court, and is too well established to be questioned. But whether we consider the case upon this rule, or consider it as though we were trying the issue of fact in the first instance, we see no reason to reverse the finding of the court below.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Neil McLachlan, Jr., and another v. Mary Branch
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published