145 Minn. 487 | Minn. | 1920
Defendant appealed from an order denying a new trial after a directed verdict in favor of plaintiff.
Plaintiff brought suit on five promissory notes of $33 each. 'Defendant admitted the execution of the notes, and alleged as a defense thereto‘that they were given for the purchase price of certain jewelry purchased under a
Defendant subsequently asked leave to amend his answer, but the proposed amendment did not charge fraud in procuring the execution of the contract, and, even if it had, the court was well within its discretion in refusing to permit an amendment at that time which entirely changed the issues. Plaintiff was a nonresident, had taken the evidence in its behalf by deposition, and had no witnesses present. After defendant had made his motion for a new trial and this motion had been denied, he made another application to amend his answer. This proposed amended answer charged fraud in procuring the execution of the contract, but no error can be predicated on the denial of such an application made at that stage of the proceedings.
Order affirmed.