Boynton v. Simmons

Decided January 29, 1926

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1984

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1926-01-29

Wilson, O. J.

¶1 (dissenting.)

¶2 I agree that , there must be a reversal, but I do not agree that judgment should be entered. This appeal. brought to us an order for judgment made on an alternative motion for judgment non obstante or a new trial. Our reversal of the order for judgment leaves the motion for a new trial for disposition by the trial court. Parker v. Fryberger, 165 Minn. 374, 206 N. W. 716; Central Met. Bank v. Fidelity & C. Co. 159 Minn. 28, 198 N. W. 137; Kies v. Searles, 146 Minn. 359, 178 N. W. 811.

Dibell, J. concurs in dissent.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Posture: After the former appeal reported in 156 Minn. 144 , 194 N.W. 330 , the matter was tried before Johnson, J., and a jury which answered in the affirmative the question whether the execution of the 1916 will was the result of the undue influence of Miss Boynton. The subsequent proceedings are narrated in the second paragraph of the opinion. Frank A. Simmons and others appealed from the order setting aside the verdict and directing judgment in favor of respondent Boynton. Reversed and remanded.