Iverson v. Farmers Elevator Co. of Georgetown

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Iverson v. Farmers Elevator Co. of Georgetown

177 N.W. 924, 146 Minn. 467, 1920 Minn. LEXIS 649

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 21, 1920

DocketNo. 21,774

StatusPublished

This text of 177 N.W. 924 (Iverson v. Farmers Elevator Co. of Georgetown) 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

Iverson v. Farmers Elevator Co. of Georgetown, 177 N.W. 924, 146 Minn. 467, 1920 Minn. LEXIS 649 (Mich. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In October, 1912, plaintiff delivered 103% bushels of millet .seed to defendant for storage in its elevator. The millet seed spoiled while in the elevator and was a total loss. Plaintiff sued for its value and the court found that he was entitled to recover the sum of $69.24. Defendant appealed from an order denying .a new trial.

Defendant contends: (1) That the millet seed was wet when deposited in the elevator and that this was an inherent defect which caused it to heat and spoil in spite of defendant’s efforts to save it; (2) that defendant was not guilty of any negligence but exercised due and proper care to dry out the seed and preserve it; and (3) that defendant was a gratuitous bailee and was not required to exercise as high a degree of care as it in fact exercised.

The evidence does not conclusively establish any of these contentions and we find no ground for disturbing the conclusion reached by the trial court.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

In October, 1912, plaintiff delivered 103% bushels of millet .seed to defendant for storage in its elevator. The millet seed spoiled while in the elevator and was a total loss. Plaintiff sued for its value and the court found that he was entitled to recover the sum of $69.24. Defendant appealed from an order denying .a new trial.

Defendant contends: (1) That the millet seed was wet when deposited in the elevator and that this was an inherent defect which caused it to heat and spoil in spite of defendant’s efforts to save it; (2) that defendant was not guilty of any negligence but exercised due and proper care to dry out the seed and preserve it; and (3) that defendant was a gratuitous bailee and was not required to exercise as high a degree of care as it in fact exercised.

The evidence does not conclusively establish any of these contentions and we find no ground for disturbing the conclusion reached by the trial court.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 N.W. 924, 146 Minn. 467, 1920 Minn. LEXIS 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iverson-v-farmers-elevator-co-of-georgetown-minn-1920.