Hart v. Kessler

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Hart v. Kessler

55 N.W. 742, 53 Minn. 546, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 385

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 27, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 N.W. 742 (Hart v. Kessler) 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

Hart v. Kessler, 55 N.W. 742, 53 Minn. 546, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 385 (Mich. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

The action being for conversion, the plaintiffs could not recover unless they proved their right of property in the chattels alleged to have been converted. The evidence introduced by them did not tend to prove this. They having sold the chattels (5,000 cigars, worth $300) to Curry, the most that could be claimed for the evidence was that he orally agreed to retransfer them to plaintiffs, and they agreed to take them in payment of their account against him. Nothing was done that could be construed to be a delivery or a payment for them, and nothing said indicating that the parties understood it to be a completed retransfer of the property, or anything but an executory agreement to retransfer.

The fact that Curry excepted the cigars from his bill of sale to defendant had no tendency to prove a sale in pracsenti to plaintiffs. [549]*549It was not abuse of discretion to refuse, the day after the proofs were closed, to reopen the case for plaintiffs to make further proofs.

Order affirmed.

(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 743.)

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

The action being for conversion, the plaintiffs could not recover unless they proved their right of property in the chattels alleged to have been converted. The evidence introduced by them did not tend to prove this. They having sold the chattels (5,000 cigars, worth $300) to Curry, the most that could be claimed for the evidence was that he orally agreed to retransfer them to plaintiffs, and they agreed to take them in payment of their account against him. Nothing was done that could be construed to be a delivery or a payment for them, and nothing said indicating that the parties understood it to be a completed retransfer of the property, or anything but an executory agreement to retransfer.

The fact that Curry excepted the cigars from his bill of sale to defendant had no tendency to prove a sale in pracsenti to plaintiffs. [549]*549It was not abuse of discretion to refuse, the day after the proofs were closed, to reopen the case for plaintiffs to make further proofs.

Order affirmed.

(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 743.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 N.W. 742, 53 Minn. 546, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-kessler-minn-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack