Long v. Conn
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 1920, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Long v. Conn (Minn. 1920)
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
Appellant presented to the probate court for allowance, a claim against the estate of deceased, based on a promissory note of $1,000, decedent being the maker and appellant the payee thereof. From an order disallowing the claim, an appeal was taken to the district court, where there was a trial by jury. The defense was that there was no eonsideraiton for the note. At the close of the evidence, the court, on appellant’s motion, directed a verdict in his favor. Thereafter respondent moved for a new trial, on the ground that the court erred in directing the verdict and that the same was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law. The case is here on appeal from an order granting the motion.
The sole question presented is whether respondent produced sufficient evidence to require the submission to the jury of the issue of want of consideration. A careful examination of the record has led us to the conclusion that he did and that the court was right in granting the motion for a new trial. In view of the fact that the case is to be tried again, we refrain from commenting on the evidence.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.