Royal Indemnity Co. v. Township of Island Lake
| Decision Date | 10 May 1929 |
| Docket Number | 27,133,27,381 |
| Citation | 225 N.W. 291,177 Minn. 408 |
| Parties | ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY v. TOWNSHIP OF ISLAND LAKE |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Mahnomen county by the surety on the bond of one Danks, who contracted with defendant township to construct a road and defaulted, to recover from it the amount required to complete the contract. From a judgment for defendant, Grindeland, J. plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Mistake in form of verdict.
A mere mistake in the form of a verdict, as received, is not fatal if the intention of the jury clearly appears therefrom and it is otherwise proper. Under the facts and circumstances in this case, the verdict of the jury in favor of plaintiff and assessing damages in the sum of "none dollars" is a verdict for the defendant.
C J. Foley and Robert Pearson, for appellant.
L A. Wilson and Johnston & Carman, for respondent.
Appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment decreeing that plaintiff take nothing for its cause of action and that defendant recover its costs and disbursements.
One Danks contracted with the defendant to construct a township road. Plaintiff was surety on his bond. Danks defaulted and abandoned the work. Plaintiff then entered into a written contract with defendant to complete the Danks contract by performing the work remaining undone, the same unit prices as were specified in the Danks contract to be paid therefor. Plaintiff completed the work, having received payment of $3,000 thereon. The question in this case was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover, for the work done, a sum in excess of that which had been paid it. The case was tried on that theory and so submitted to the jury.
The evidence was conflicting and, as stated by the trial court, was not satisfactory. The burden of proof was upon plaintiff to show what work it had performed under its contract and how much, if anything, was still due thereon. It was a question for the jury. No claim is made the the rulings of the court on the admission of evidence or as to the charge given by the court to the jury were improper. The errors assigned are (1) that the the verdict is contrary to law and is not justified by the evidence; (2) that the insufficiency of the damages shows that the verdict was rendered under the influence of prejudice against the plaintiff.
There is no discussion in appellant's brief, nor was there in oral argument, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict...
To continue reading
Request your trial