¶1It is of course possible that the referee may have fallen into the mistake attributed to him by the plaintiff, but there is certainly evidence which has a reasonable tendency to sustain his finding. While in such circumstances it is not necessary to indulge in conjectures,-it occurs to us that while Exhibit K and the firm books contained — as the agent testified — a true statement of all moneys taken out by him for his salary, it may be that he' had received things other than money, sufficient, when added to the money payments, to discharge his entire salary. We see no sufficient reason for disturbing the finding, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.
27 Minn. 374
Sheffield v. Mullin
Decided December 27, 1880
Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1880-12-27
Plaintiff, surviving partner in the firm of Brandt & Co., composed of plaintiff and Charles Brandt, brought this action in the district court for Bice county against the defendant Mullin as administrator, and the other defendants, who are the widow and children, of Charles Brandt, alleging that during the lifetime of Charles Brandt, the business of the firm (which was the manufacture and sale of lager beer at Faribault, in Bice county) was managed by Brandt as the active…
Decided 1880-12-27