Moe v. Chesrown

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Moe v. Chesrown

55 N.W. 832, 54 Minn. 118, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 24

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 30, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 N.W. 832 (Moe v. Chesrown) 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

Moe v. Chesrown, 55 N.W. 832, 54 Minn. 118, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 24 (Mich. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Vanderburgh, J.

This is an action of trespass for injuries to real property, of which plaintiff alleges he was the owner and in possession. Since the question of plaintiff’s title was directly in issue, it could not be proved by parol; hence it was improper to allow the plaintiff to testify generally that he was owner. But he proved that he was in possession at the time of the injury, and he was entitled to nominal damages, at least, for an injury to the pos[119]*119session by reason of tbe trespass; and the plaintiff recovered only one dollar, which will be treated as nominal damages. No court would disturb the judgment for that amount as being in excess of nominal damages. The evidence of plaintiff’s possession will therefore sustain the judgment, notwithstanding the error complained of. It is not necessary to consider the other points raised by the appellant. In so far as they are important or material they have been considered and decided in other cases at the present term.

(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 832.)

Judgment affirmed.

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

Vanderburgh, J.

This is an action of trespass for injuries to real property, of which plaintiff alleges he was the owner and in possession. Since the question of plaintiff’s title was directly in issue, it could not be proved by parol; hence it was improper to allow the plaintiff to testify generally that he was owner. But he proved that he was in possession at the time of the injury, and he was entitled to nominal damages, at least, for an injury to the pos[119]*119session by reason of tbe trespass; and the plaintiff recovered only one dollar, which will be treated as nominal damages. No court would disturb the judgment for that amount as being in excess of nominal damages. The evidence of plaintiff’s possession will therefore sustain the judgment, notwithstanding the error complained of. It is not necessary to consider the other points raised by the appellant. In so far as they are important or material they have been considered and decided in other cases at the present term.

(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 832.)

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 N.W. 832, 54 Minn. 118, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moe-v-chesrown-minn-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack