Abrahamson v. Lamberson

• Decision Date: 08 June 1897
• Citation: 68 Minn. 454,71 N.W. 676
• Parties: ABRAHAMSON v LAMBERSON ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

68 Minn. 454

71 N.W. 676

ABRAHAMSONvLAMBERSON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 8, 1897.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. In an action tried by the court without a jury, a finding of fact that all the material allegations contained in the complaint are true is insufficient to support a judgment for plaintiff.

2. As a general rule, where the vendor of land on an executory contract wrongfully keeps the vendee out of possession, the latter is entitled to recover damages for the withholding of the premises from him, or for use and occupation for the time he is so kept out of possession; and, if he does recover any such damages, the vendor is entitled to recover interest on the unpaid purchase money for the same time. Where, in a former action, the court awarded such damages, but set off the same against the vendor's claim for improvements made while so wrongfully in possession, held, although the vendor had no right to claim for such improvements, the vendee's claim for such damages is res adjudicata, and he cannot now recoup the same against the vendor's claim for such interest. Where, in an action for the recovery of possession of land, damages are awarded for the withholding of the same, such damages should be assessed up to the time of trial, and such damages up to such time are res adjudicata and merged in the judgment in the former action. Held, the evidence did not warrant the judgment ordered.

3. While the vendor was so wrongfully in possession, he committed waste by removing from the premises certain buildings, and made improvements by erecting other and somewhat different buildings. The court in the former action found that he had made improvements of the value of about $1,000, without finding what the character of the improvements was, and set off this claim for improvements as aforesaid. Held, this amounts to a finding that the value of the improvements exceeds the damages for waste by about $1,000, and the vendee's claim for such waste is res adjudicata.

Appeal from district court, Marshall county; Frank Ives, Judge.

Action by C. W. Abrahamson against L. Lamberson and George C. Winchester. Finding for plaintiff, and from the judgment entered defendants appeal. Reversed.

H. Steenerson and A. Grindeland, for appellants.

A. C. Wilkinson, for respondent.

CANTY, J.

This action may be regarded as a second installment of Strandberg v. Rossman, 59 Minn. 509, 61 N. W. 675. After the commencement of that action, the defendant therein transferred his rights to these defendants, and after the termination of that action the plaintiff transferred his rights to this plaintiff. As will be seen by the opinion above referred to, the vendor of land on an executory contract took the possession away from the vendee without his consent, and when he was not in default. About two years thereafter, the vendee commenced the former action to recover possession, and it was more than two years thereafter before he obtained possession under the judgment in his favor in that action, so that the vendor wrongfully held possession for more than four years, and raised four crops on the land. The complaint in this action sets out the executory contract, alleges the transfers above mentioned, and that plaintiff and his assignor (Strandberg) have fully performed all the conditions of said contract to be by them performed, and have duly and fully paid the purchase price of said land, both principal and interest, and prays judgment that defendants be required to execute and deliver to plaintiff a deed of the premises. On the trial before the court without a jury, the court found for plaintiff, and from the judgment entered accordingly defendants appeal.

1. The only finding of fact made by the court below is as follows: “I find, as a matter of fact, that all the material allegations contained in the complaint are true.” Appellants contend that this finding is not sufficient to support a judgment for plaintiff. In our opinion, the point is well taken. This court has several times held that when the facts alleged in a pleading will, if found by the court, support the judgment ordered, and dispose of all the issues in the case, a finding by the court that all the allegations of the pleading are true is sufficient. School Dist. v. Wrabeck, 31 Minn. 77, 16 N. W. 493;Iron Co. v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 52 Minn. 203, 53 N. W. 1144;Bahnsen v. Gilbert, 55 Minn. 334, 56 N. W. 1117. But the vice in the findings here in question is that the court merely finds the material allegations of the complaint to be true, and it is impossible to tell what allegations the judge regarded as material and what allegations he did not. The object of the statute in requiring findings is to make it more easy to determine just what the court decided, and whether or not it erred in its decision. A denial in one pleading of each and every material allegation in the prior pleading is insufficient. Montour v. Purdy, 11 Minn. 384 (Gil. 278); Dodge v. Chandler, 13 Minn. 114 (Gil. 105). A finding that all the material allegations stated in a pleading are true is also insufficient. Breeze v. Doyle, 19 Cal. 102;Ladd v. Tully, 51 Cal. 277;Hardenbergh v. Hardenbergh, 54 Cal. 591.

2. But we are also of the opinion that the evidence will not support the judgment ordered. The uncontradicted evidence shows that plaintiff and his predecessor (Strandberg) have paid substantially all of the purchase price of the land and all of the interest thereon, except that, on the part of the principal remaining unpaid for the four years during which the vendor (Rossman) wrongfully had possession as aforesaid, the interest has not been paid for these four years. Respondent contends that, as Rossman was wrongfully in possession, Strandberg was not obliged to pay interest for these four years. As a general rule, the vendee thus wrongfully kept out of possession by the...