Flatner v. Good

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Flatner v. Good

29 N.W. 56, 35 Minn. 395, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 164

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 9, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 N.W. 56 (Flatner v. Good) 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

Flatner v. Good, 29 N.W. 56, 35 Minn. 395, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 164 (Mich. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Berry, J.

Notwithstanding a conflict of testimony, there is sufficient evidence in this case having a reasonable tendency to show that plaintiff was owner of the property in controversy, and entitled to its possession. There is also like evidence that, at the time of its seizure in the present action of claim and delivery, the property was in the actual physical possession of the defendant. It was in a building belonging to him, and of which, as the evidence tends to show, he kept the key, and had control. The fact that, in these circumstances, he was keeping the property for another person, does not, in an action of this kind, alter the fact that he was in actual physical possession of it, and therefore a proper defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Berry, J.

Notwithstanding a conflict of testimony, there is sufficient evidence in this case having a reasonable tendency to show that plaintiff was owner of the property in controversy, and entitled to its possession. There is also like evidence that, at the time of its seizure in the present action of claim and delivery, the property was in the actual physical possession of the defendant. It was in a building belonging to him, and of which, as the evidence tends to show, he kept the key, and had control. The fact that, in these circumstances, he was keeping the property for another person, does not, in an action of this kind, alter the fact that he was in actual physical possession of it, and therefore a proper defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.W. 56, 35 Minn. 395, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flatner-v-good-minn-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack