George v. Bowser

Supreme Court of Minnesota

George v. Bowser

170 N.W. 506, 141 Minn. 305, 1918 Minn. LEXIS 416

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 27, 1918

DocketNo. 21,112

StatusPublished

This text of 170 N.W. 506 (George v. Bowser) 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

George v. Bowser, 170 N.W. 506, 141 Minn. 305, 1918 Minn. LEXIS 416 (Mich. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Dibedl, J.

This is an action for the conversion of certain logs. At the close of the plaintiff’s case the action was dismissed on the motion of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The evidence is very brief and does not call for extended discussion. The plaintiff was much restricted in his evidence and offers to prove by the rulings of the court and we think too much so. It may be conceded that offered testimony had a tendency to prove that he was the owner of the logs. It at least suggests that if he had been allowed to develop his evidence he might have shown ownership. There is, however, no evidence of a taking nor is there any offer of proof which we can construe as directed to the fact of a taking. The action was rightly dismissed.

Order affirmed.

Chief Justice Brown took no part.

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

Dibedl, J.

This is an action for the conversion of certain logs. At the close of the plaintiff’s case the action was dismissed on the motion of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The evidence is very brief and does not call for extended discussion. The plaintiff was much restricted in his evidence and offers to prove by the rulings of the court and we think too much so. It may be conceded that offered testimony had a tendency to prove that he was the owner of the logs. It at least suggests that if he had been allowed to develop his evidence he might have shown ownership. There is, however, no evidence of a taking nor is there any offer of proof which we can construe as directed to the fact of a taking. The action was rightly dismissed.

Order affirmed.

Chief Justice Brown took no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 N.W. 506, 141 Minn. 305, 1918 Minn. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-v-bowser-minn-1918.