Rodes v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co.

52 N.W. 27, 49 Minn. 370, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 184
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedApril 25, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 52 N.W. 27 (Rodes v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co.) 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
Rodes v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co., 52 N.W. 27, 49 Minn. 370, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 184 (Mich. 1892).

Opinion

Yanderburgh, J.

The’ plaintiff, mortgagee of a crop of wheat raised on the farm of one William Schrieber, sues the defendant to recover the value of a portion of the crop claimed to have been wrongfully delivered to defendant by Schrieber.

1. The mortgage was executed by “Wm. Schrieber.” In the certificate of acknowledgment, however, the mortgagor is described and [371]*371designated by the name of “Vm. Strieb'er;” but, as the certificate identifies the person named, as known to the officer taking the acknowledgment “to be the person above named,” it is evident that the variance is not material, and arises from a clerical error in writing the name of the mortgagor. It sufficiently appears that he duly acknowledged the instrument, and the certificate was sufficient proof of its execution. The mortgage was properly received in evidence. Rogers v. Manley, 46 Minn. 403, (49 N. W. Rep. 194.)

(Opinion published 52 N. W. Rep. 27.)

2. The only evidence of a delivery and receipt of the grain at the defendant’s elevator was the admission of an agent and employe of the defendant in its service at the elevator.

This admission was made to an agent of the plaintiff in response to his inquiry upon the subject, and was testified to by the latter against the objection of the defendant’s counsel.

It was clearly hearsay, arid was improperly received. It was not made in the course of any business transacted with the defendant, but related wholly to a past transaction between the defendant and the mortgagor, to which the witness was a stranger. For this error there must be a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Coates v. Smith
160 P. 517 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1916)
Larson v. Elsner
101 N.W. 307 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1904)
Parker v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad
86 N.W. 2 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1901)
Jackson v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance
81 N.W. 545 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1900)
Blomberg v. Montgomery
72 N.W. 56 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1897)
In re Tower's Estate
52 N.W. 27 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 N.W. 27, 49 Minn. 370, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodes-v-st-anthony-dakota-elevator-co-minn-1892.