Baker v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 29 June 1893
• Citation: 54 Minn. 71,55 N.W. 823
• Parties: BAKER v TAYLOR.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

54 Minn. 71

55 N.W. 823

BAKERvTAYLOR.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 29, 1893.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Certain evidence held admissible as the declarations, against interest, of a person since deceased.

2. The mere fact that the owner of property has intrusted the possession of it to another will not estop him from asserting his ownership against one who purchases from the bailee in the belief that such bailee was the owner.

Appeal from district court, Otter Tail county; Searle, Judge.

Action in claim and delivery by Charles D. Baker against James Taylor. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

C. C. Houpt and Parsons & Brown, for appellant.

Mason & Hilton and E. E. Corliss, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

Action of claim and delivery to recover possession of a colt. Plaintiff claims possession under three several chattel mortgages executed by one Dibbs in October, 1886, November, 1886, and September, 1888, respectively. The dam of the colt in question formerly belonged to one Mortimer Taylor, the real defendant in the action, (as whose agent the defendant claims possession,) and was by him sold to Dibbs in April, 1886, two or three weeks before the colt was foaled. The claim of the defendant is that when Mortimer Taylor sold the mare to Dibbs he reserved the unborn colt, which it was agreed should remain his property, but that Dibbs should raise it for him for an agreed compensation. Dibbs died shortly after the execution of the last mortgage to plaintiff. From the time of its birth the colt remained in the possession of Dibbs, on his farm, until the time of his decease, since which time it seems to have remained there, in the possession of his widow, until taken possession of by defendant, shortly before the commencement of this action. Upon the trial, defendant offered to prove statements made by Dibbs in the spring and summer of 1886, after he had bought the mare, and before the execution of any of the mortgages to plaintiff, to the effect that he had bought the mare, but did not get the colt; that he did not own it; that Taylor had reserved it, etc. Part of this evidence the court admitted, against plaintiff's objection; but subsequently, upon counsel for defendant stating that they did not expect to prove that plaintiff had any knowledge of these statements of Dibbs, the court excluded the remainder of the evidence, and directed a verdict for plaintiff.

It seems to us that this evidence was admissible as declarations, against interest, of a person since deceased. It was clearly within all the conditions requisite for the reception of such evidence: (1) The declarant was dead; (2) the declaration was against the pecuniary interest of the declarant at the time; (3) the declaration was of a fact of which the declarant was immediately and personally cognizant; (4) and the declaration was made, not only ante litem motam, but also before the declarant had executed any of these mortgages, and when there was no...