
    E. M. Kohn vs. Mollie J. Tedford.
    May 9, 1891.
    Appeal — Review of Evidence — Insufficient “Case.” — Upon a “case” not embracing a statement that it contains all the evidence, and not certified to contain it all, a verdict cannot beset aside as being unsupported by the evidence.
    Action brought in the municipal court of Minneapolis, by mortgagee against mortgagor, to recover possession of certain household furniture. The jury found for defendant, and assessed the value of the property at $200. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and the plaintiff appealed.
    
      Fred Rogers, for appellant.
    O. Mosness, for respondent.
   By the Court.

The only question on this appeal is whether in the making of a loan by the plaintiff, through an agent, there was an agreement for usurious interest. The case contains evidence tending to show that the loan was made upon an agreement for the payment of interest at the rate of 3 per cent, a month, and that the same was paid. But, even if the evidence before us should be deemed insufficient to support the verdict, the appellant could not prevail; for the settled case does not purport to contain all the evidence, nor is it certified to contain it.

Judgment affirmed.  