
    N. Elsbarg vs. Gust Myrman and others.
    November 1, 1889.
    
      Held, that the verdict was justified by the evidence.
    Appeal by defendants from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, refusing a new trial after verdict of $199.75. The action was for a balance due for excavating, and grading done by plaintiff for defendants, who had a subcontract for grading certain sections of a railway from D. C. Shepard & Co., the principal contractors. The defendants alleged a settlement and payment in full, and relied on a receipt in full of plaintiff’s account against them, which receipt was delivered by plaintiff to D. G. Shepard & Co., on receiving from them the amount of the account. The court allowed parol evidence to explain the receipt.
    
      Ueland, Shores & Holt, for appellants.
    
      S. Meyers, for respondent.
   By the Court.

We are of opinion that the verdict in this case was justified by the evidence, and we see no reason for supposing that the amount of it was purély arbitrary, as contended by appellants. It is entirely reconcilable with the evidence and the law as given by the trial judge upon substantially the grounds suggested in respondent’s brief. The receipt given by plaintiff to Shepard & Co., being a mere acknowledgment of payment, was subject to parol explanation or contradiction, and there was ample evidence to justify the jury in finding that there was no settlement of plaintiff’s claim, but that the receipt was merely given to enable him to obtain the money in the hands of Shepard & Co. belonging to defendants. Morris v. St. Paul & Chicago Ry. Co., 21 Minn. 91.

Order affirmed.  