Sinclair v. Fitzpatrick

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Sinclair v. Fitzpatrick

149 N.W. 1070, 127 Minn. 530, 1914 Minn. LEXIS 942

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 13, 1914

DocketNos. 18,898-(135)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 N.W. 1070 (Sinclair v. Fitzpatrick) 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

Sinclair v. Fitzpatrick, 149 N.W. 1070, 127 Minn. 530, 1914 Minn. LEXIS 942 (Mich. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cdbiam.

This action was brought against the huband and wife to recover the reasonable value for changing, at their request, a woodshed into a garage. Judgment was rendered against both. The husband alone appeals therefrom, upon the sole ground that there is no finding that he requested the work to be done. The findings are not to be commended. But since there was no application either for a new trial or for an amendment of the findings to more definitely state whether or not appellant requested plaintiff to render the services, we should construe the findings so as to sustain the judgment, if possible. The findings relative to appellant’s responsibility are: That he with his wife and family lived upon the premises where respondent did the work; that he had previously made smaller repairs thereon upon the wife's order which appellant paid for; that the alteration in question was made upon the wife’s request; that appellant was about the premises part of the time every day while the work was being done; and that the premises thus improved constituted the homestead of the defendants. The fair and necessary conclusion from these findings is that the wife was held out by appellant as his agent in ordering this trifling change in the homestead of which he was at least a part owner. Adams v. Eidam, 42 Minn. 53, 43 N. W. 690; Clark v. Thorpe Bros. 117 Minn. 202, 135 N. W. 387.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pee Cdbiam.

This action was brought against the huband and wife to recover the reasonable value for changing, at their request, a woodshed into a garage. Judgment was rendered against both. The husband alone appeals therefrom, upon the sole ground that there is no finding that he requested the work to be done. The findings are not to be commended. But since there was no application either for a new trial or for an amendment of the findings to more definitely state whether or not appellant requested plaintiff to render the services, we should construe the findings so as to sustain the judgment, if possible. The findings relative to appellant’s responsibility are: That he with his wife and family lived upon the premises where respondent did the work; that he had previously made smaller repairs thereon upon the wife's order which appellant paid for; that the alteration in question was made upon the wife’s request; that appellant was about the premises part of the time every day while the work was being done; and that the premises thus improved constituted the homestead of the defendants. The fair and necessary conclusion from these findings is that the wife was held out by appellant as his agent in ordering this trifling change in the homestead of which he was at least a part owner. Adams v. Eidam, 42 Minn. 53, 43 N. W. 690; Clark v. Thorpe Bros. 117 Minn. 202, 135 N. W. 387.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 N.W. 1070, 127 Minn. 530, 1914 Minn. LEXIS 942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinclair-v-fitzpatrick-minn-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack