Austin v. Robertson
| Decision Date | 23 January 1879 |
| Citation | 25 Minn. 431 |
| Parties | Charles G. Austin v. Ole L. Robertson |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Chippewa and Lac qui Parle counties, Brown, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
Order affirmed.
F. W. Pearsall, for appellant.
H. W. Brown, for respondent.
There was sufficient evidence to justify the verdict.
The action being against defendant, for taking, as sheriff, plaintiff's wheat, in the possession of his agent, A. A. Austin, upon an execution against J. A. Austin, the defendant offered to prove "what J. A. Austin said to him, while he was taking the wheat, in the presence of A. A. Austin, as to the possession and control of the wheat." Upon objection by plaintiff, no ground being stated, this was excluded.
When a party makes an offer of testimony, the offer must be sufficiently full to enable the court to see that the testimony offered is material. If it does not appear to be material, the court is not bound to receive it, even though the opposite party do not object. In other words, a trial court need not, even though the parties consent to it, spend its time listening to testimony not affecting the controversy before it. The testimony offered might or might not be material, depending on what it was that J. A. Austin said. What he said the offer does not indicate, and it therefore fails to show the testimony material.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buck v. Buck
...The question did not indicate that the answer would be pertinent to the issue and an offer showing materiality was necessary. Austin v. Robertson, 25 Minn. 431; Notes on Minn. Reports, 1223. A careful consideration of all other assignments of error has been made and we discover no sufficien......
-
First National Bank of Beaver Creek v. Wiggins
... ... offer to show the materiality of the same, and there was ... therefore no reversible error therein. Austin v ... Robertson, 25 Minn. 431. 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § ... 2. The ... principal contention in support of the appeal is that ... ...
-
Nichols & Shepard Company v. Wiedemann
... ... and counsel made no statement or offer showing the ... materiality of the evidence sought to be elicited. Austin ... v. Robertson, 25 Minn. 431; Scofield v ... Walrath, 35 Minn. 356, 28 N.W. 926 ... 3. The ... defendant, as a part of the ... ...
-
American Multigraph Sales Company v. Grant
...appear, either from the question or otherwise. Such being the case, there was no reversible error in the rulings complained of. Austin v. Robertson, 25 Minn. 431. was said in the trial court, and in the briefs, and on the argument in this court, to the effect that the note was executed by d......