Ohlsen v. Manderfield

• Decision Date: 01 November 1881
• Citation: 10 N.W. 418,28 Minn. 390
• Parties: Henry Ohlson v. John Manderfeld
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

10 N.W. 418

28 Minn. 390

Henry Ohlson v. John Manderfeld

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 1, 1881

Appeal by defendant, who is sheriff of Brown county, from an order of the district court for that county, Cox, J., presiding refusing a new trial.

Order affirmed.

J Newhart and S. L. Pierce, for appellant.

J. M Thompson, for respondent.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

Appeal from an order denying a new trial. The grounds of the motion were -- First, errors in law occurring at the trial second, that the verdict was not justified by the evidence. The action was for the wrongful taking and conversion of certain stacks of grain, alleged to be the property of the plaintiff. The answer denies plaintiff's title, alleges title in one Conrad Gieseke, and justifies the taking by defendant, as sheriff, under an execution against Gieseke. The only error alleged to have occurred at the trial which was urged upon the argument, or which we deem necessary to notice, was the refusal of the court, on the motion of defendant, when plaintiff rested his case, to dismiss the action, upon the ground, as we understand the case, that plaintiff had failed to show that he had served upon defendant sheriff an affidavit and notice of his claim, as required by Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 154. The motion was properly denied, for the reason, among others, that when plaintiff rested it had neither been admitted nor proved that defendant had taken the property as sheriff upon any legal process.

The defendant further contends that the evidence shows that the claim of ownership of the property by plaintiff was merely colorable, and a sham devised in fraud of the creditors of Gieseke, and for that reason the court below erred in not granting a new trial. It appears from the evidence that the property in question was grain raised upon the farm of Gieseke, in the year 1880; that prior to that year, at least, Gieseke lived upon the farm and cultivated it himself. The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that on the first of April, 1880, he rented the land from Gieseke for the year 1880, for a cash rent by him paid to Gieseke in advance; that, under such lease, he planted and raised the grain in question; and that the work which Gieseke did in connection with the crops, he was hired to do by plaintiff, the former continuing to live in the house situate upon the land, and the latter boarding with him.

We admit that a consideration of the entire evidence impresses us with at least a suspicion that the transaction of the pretended lease might have been designed merely as a cover to put the crops out of the reach of process in favor of Gieseke's creditors. But the transaction might have been an honest one; and the jury having in substance so found, we cannot say that the verdict is not justified by the evidence, or that the court below erred in refusing to grant a new trial. This court will not reverse an order denying a new trial, simply because they may be of opinion that the verdict is against the preponderance of evidence. The trial court had the advantage, not possessed by this court, of having heard the witnesses testify, and of seeing them upon the stand, and of observing their appearance and manner of testifying; circumstances upon which, to a considerable extent, the weight to be given to their evidence depends. Therefore, whether or not a new trial should be granted on the ground that the verdict is against the evidence, must, to a certain extent, be left to the judgment and discretion of the trial court; and, where the...