Belluci v. Marra
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 1948, 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kiebach v. Kiebach (Minn. 1948)
- Hanse v. St. Paul City Railway Co. (Minn. 1944)
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
Plaintiff brought this action for specific performance and other relief under an alleged agreement with one James Marra, now deceased, to convey certain properties to her by will as compensation for services rendered by plaintiff in the deceased’s business during his lifetime. The deceased executed a will but designated as beneficiaries the defendants, his niece and nephew, rather than the plaintiff.
After trial, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law that plaintiff had in fact rendered the services pursuant to a mutual understanding with James Marra that upon his death she would inherit his property as payment therefor; that, since plaintiff’s services were of such a character as to permit of compensation in *100 money, the relief of specific performance of the contract was denied, and judgment for $9,000 was awarded plaintiff.
Defendants moved in the alternative for amended findings of fact and conclusions of law or a new trial. The motion was denied, and defendants appeal from the order denying a new trial. The motion for a new trial does not contain any statutory ground therefor as prescribed by Minn. St. 1941, § 547.01 (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 9325). After specifying the suggested substituted findings of fact and conclusions of law, defendants’ notice of motion for a new trial was made “upon the grounds heretofore mentioned.” One must indulge in speculation to determine what is meant by “upon the grounds heretofore mentioned.” At any rate, such an assignment in the notice of motion for new trial was not a compliance with the statute. The order denying the new trial, therefore, cannot be disturbed. In re Estate of Williams, 217 Minn. 634, 13 N. W. (2d) 736; Julius v. Lenz, 212 Minn. 201, 3 N. W. (2d) 10; Hoyt v. Kittson County State Bank, 180 Minn. 93, 230 N. W. 269.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.