Aldrich v. Grand Rapids Cycle Company

• Decision Date: 02 July 1895
• Docket Number: 9494--(223)
• Citation: 63 N.W. 1115,61 Minn. 531
• Parties: EMMA A. ALDRICH v. GRAND RAPIDS CYCLE COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

63 N.W. 1115

61 Minn. 531

EMMA A. ALDRICH v. GRAND RAPIDS CYCLE COMPANY

Nos. 9494--(223)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 2, 1895

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Hicks, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Affirmed.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

George R. Robinson, for appellant.

S. A Reed, for respondent.

OPINION

CANTY, J.

The defendant delivered to plaintiff a number of bicycles to sell on 10 per cent. commission. Plaintiff sold 61 of these for $ 2,731, for which she is entitled to a commission of $ 273.10. There is also due her $ 30 for advertising for defendant. She has paid defendant $ 1,436.75, leaving a balance due defendant of $ 991.15. Both parties admit these facts. Plaintiff brought this action to recover a commission for assisting defendant to sell a large number of other bicycles to one Field for the price of $ 11,290, and asked judgment for a balance in excess of said sum of $ 991.15, after setting off the same against a part of her claim. The jury returned a verdict for defendant, on its counterclaim, for the sum of $ 710.09, and from an order denying her motion for a new trial plaintiff appeals.

The court left to the jury the questions whether or not Pratt the defendant's agent, employed plaintiff to assist him in making the sale to Field, and whether or not Pratt had authority from defendant so to employ plaintiff. Under the evidence, these were both questions for the jury, and the jury must necessarily have found in favor of plaintiff on both questions, so that on these points she has no cause to complain. One of plaintiff's witnesses testified that the usual commission for selling goods on commission was from 7 1/2 to 10 per cent., and that a reasonable charge, under the circumstances of this case, for bringing Field and Pratt together, and assisting in making the sale to Field, would be 10 per cent. of the amount of the sale. It is true that this evidence was not contradicted by any evidence offered on behalf of defendant, but such opinion evidence is not conclusive, even though uncontradicted. Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136, 43 N.W. 842; Olson v Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407, 44 N.W. 30. We find no error in the charge.

After the jury had retired to consider their verdict, they returned with a verdict for plaintiff for the sum of $ 307. Thereupon the following proceedings took place. "The Court: You cannot find for any such sum as that gentlemen. There can only be found, in any event, $ 1,129 for the plaintiff, and $ 991.15 is to be deducted from it. * * * You will return, gentlemen. (After the jury retired the court requested that they be brought into court, whereupon the following proceedings took place:) The Court: Have you that verdict with you, gentlemen, that you had? (The verdict was handed to the court.) The Court: It occurred to me, after you went out, that I could shorten this matter, if that verdict was your verdict, if I can get at your intention. A Juror: We want to take that amount out of the $ 991.15, and figure the interest. The Court: What I want to get at in open court is the fact. ...