Minnesota Supreme Court, 1913

Murphy v. Kuntze

Murphy v. Kuntze
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 3, 1913
122 Minn. 530; 142 N.W. 1134; 1913 Minn. LEXIS 634 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

James P. McMahon, for appellants., Thomas S. Qwinn, for respondent.

Murphy v. Kuntze

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s right to relief depended wholly on the question whether a conveyance of 65 acres of land made by one defendant to the other was a mortgage. The jury found that it was not a mortgage. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence did not support the verdict. The trial courts are in the exercise of a sound discretion when passing on a motion for a new trial. 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 7145. We are not prepared to hold that the court abused this discretion in granting a new trial. It is unnecessary to discuss the evidence, except to state that the unusual thing about *531the giving of the deed was that the seller gave the purchaser a promissory note in the amount mentioned as the consideration for the deed, and that there was an admitted understanding that if that sum was, within a certain time, paid by the seller to the purchaser a reconveyance should be made.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.