Blaise v. Anderson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Blaise v. Anderson

28 N.W. 922, 35 Minn. 306, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 127

DecidedJune 25, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 28 N.W. 922 (Blaise v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blaise v. Anderson, 28 N.W. 922, 35 Minn. 306, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 127 (Mich. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

The verdict for plaintiff for $195 was not justified by the evidence for two reasons:

1. The only evidence tending to support the complaint was that defendants agreed to pay or allow plaintiff $195 for the horses, harness, and wagon. There is no evidence tending to prove that he ever delivered or offered to deliver them either the harness or wagon.

2. In no view of the case was plaintiff entitled to a verdict for more than $100. According to the undisputed evidence, the agreement was that, in case defendant purchased the property, it was to be paid for as follows, viz.: $95, applied in satisfaction of a debt of that amount due from plaintiff to defendants, and the balance of $100 to [307]*307be paid in stone. Now, assuming that the sale was made, and the property all delivered, then plaintiff’s debt of $95 is paid, and the defendants owe him the balance of $100. All that plaintiff complains of is that defendants have refused to give him “a receipt of said bill for $95.”

We also think the court erred in refusing to allow defendants to introduce in evidence the chattel mortgage from plaintiff to Hobart. There was evidence tending to prove that it was a lien on the horses in question. In their answer defendants alleged, as a reason for refusing to accept the horses, that “plaintiff’s title to said horses was not satisfactory to defendants.” We think this allegation was sufficient to entitle defendants to show that plaintiff’s title to the horses was incumbered.

For these reasons a new trial should have been granted.

Order reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mitchell, J.

The verdict for plaintiff for $195 was not justified by the evidence for two reasons:

1. The only evidence tending to support the complaint was that defendants agreed to pay or allow plaintiff $195 for the horses, harness, and wagon. There is no evidence tending to prove that he ever delivered or offered to deliver them either the harness or wagon.

2. In no view of the case was plaintiff entitled to a verdict for more than $100. According to the undisputed evidence, the agreement was that, in case defendant purchased the property, it was to be paid for as follows, viz.: $95, applied in satisfaction of a debt of that amount due from plaintiff to defendants, and the balance of $100 to [307]*307be paid in stone. Now, assuming that the sale was made, and the property all delivered, then plaintiff’s debt of $95 is paid, and the defendants owe him the balance of $100. All that plaintiff complains of is that defendants have refused to give him “a receipt of said bill for $95.”

We also think the court erred in refusing to allow defendants to introduce in evidence the chattel mortgage from plaintiff to Hobart. There was evidence tending to prove that it was a lien on the horses in question. In their answer defendants alleged, as a reason for refusing to accept the horses, that “plaintiff’s title to said horses was not satisfactory to defendants.” We think this allegation was sufficient to entitle defendants to show that plaintiff’s title to the horses was incumbered.

For these reasons a new trial should have been granted.

Order reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.W. 922, 35 Minn. 306, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blaise-v-anderson-minn-1886.