¶1This action was brought to collect a balance due on an account for goods, wares, and merchandise sold by plaintiff ta defendant; it being admitted by both parties that the property sold consisted largely of intoxicating liquors. The defense was that the defendant at the time of such sales was an habitual drunkard. This was the main issue submitted to the jury, and the verdict was for the plaintiff. There was evidence to sustain it, and, under the well-known rule, the order appealed from, which denied defendant’s motion for a new trial, must be, and hereby is, affirmed.
81 Minn. 219
Smith v. Corcoran
Decided October 18, 1900
Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1900-10-18
Action-in the district court for Waseca county to recover $132 for goods sold and delivered. The case was tried before Buckham, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $115. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1926
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1900-10-18
View the full empirical analysis of this case →