Barnes v. Christofferson

• Decision Date: 30 October 1895
• Docket Number: 9627-(191)
• Citation: 64 N.W. 821,62 Minn. 318
• Parties: HENRY BARNES v. HANS CHRISTOFFERSON
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

64 N.W. 821

62 Minn. 318

HENRY BARNES v. HANS CHRISTOFFERSON

Nos. 9627-(191)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

October 30, 1895

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Marshall county, Ives, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Affirmed.

The order denying a motion for a new trial is affirmed.

Brown & Carr, for appellant.

E. M Stanton, for respondent.

OPINION

BUCK, J.

This is an action of replevin, brought to recover a span of horses, or, if a return thereof could not be had, that plaintiff have judgment for the sum of $ 250, the value thereof, and $ 2 per day for the use of said horses from October 18, 1893. Answer substantially a general denial.

In October, 1892, the plaintiff brought a drove of horses into Marshall county, in this state, and in the same month gave the horses in controversy into the possession of one Peter Barland, who kept the continual and exclusive possession of them for more than a year thereafter; working them on his farm, and otherwise using them as his own. While Barland was thus in possession of these horses, he executed a chattel mortgage thereon to defendant, dated February 4, 1893, and it is under this mortgage that the defendant claims title to them. About the middle of October, 1893, Barland absconded and his whereabouts were unknown to these parties. The defendant immediately took possession of the horses under his mortgage, and shortly thereafter the plaintiff brought this action against him to recover possession of the horses claiming to be the owner thereof. On the trial the plaintiff introduced testimony to show that he owned the horses during all of the time that Barland had possession of them, and that he only let Barland have the horses to keep, and that he never in any manner sold them to Barland. The plaintiff obtained a verdict in his favor, -- for the return thereof or for damages in case a return thereof could not be had, and damages for the use of the horses.

During the trial the plaintiff called a witness by the name of Robert Kruse, who testified, in behalf of the plaintiff, that in June or July, 1893, he heard a conversation between Barnes and Barland, in which Barnes said, "Barland, I understand that you have given Christofferson a mortgage on my horses." Barland answered, and said: "Well, I don't know as I have. * * * I told him the horses were not mine," and that he did not know that Christofferson had, but might have, put...