Bergh v. Sloan

• Decision Date: 27 April 1893
• Citation: Bergh v. Sloan, 53 Minn. 116, 54 N. W. 943 (Minn. 1893)
• Parties: Christian C. Bergh v. Samuel G. Sloan
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

54 N.W. 943

53 Minn. 116

Christian C. Bergh v. Samuel G. Sloan

Supreme Court of Minnesota

April 27, 1893

Submitted on briefs April 10, 1893

Application for reargument denied May 9, 1893.

Appeal by defendant, Samuel G. Sloan, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, W. D. Cornish, J., made December 2 1892, denying his motion for a new trial.

On July 2, 1887, James Stinson sold at auction a block of land in one of his Additions to St. Paul. It was bid in by the plaintiff Christian C. Bergh. He paid the price, $ 4,000, and gave the defendant a memorandum in writing signed by him, which read as follows:

"To Sam'l G. Sloan, St. Paul: I hereby acknowledge that you and myself are equally interested in the purchase of James Stinson of block 12, Stinson's Francis Street Addition to St. Paul, for the sum of $ 4,000, and that for convenience of transfer the title has been taken from said Stinson in my name only; one-half of price paid for said block, $ 2,000, to be paid by you on or before three years from the date of this writing, with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent per annum, which said interest is to be paid annually; all taxes and assessments on said block are to be paid by us, share and share alike, whenever they become due. If property is not sold before expiration of above time of three years, I hereby agree to deed to you on payment of said principal sum of two thousand dollars, one-half of same free and clear.

"Dated at St. Paul, Minn., July 2, 1887

"C. C. Bergh. [Seal.]

"Attest: R. B. Galusha."

This was the only writing between the parties. It was not signed by the defendant. The property remained unsold, and defendant paid interest on $ 2,000 for three years, and half the taxes, and then refused to pay more. Plaintiff tendered a deed of an undivided half of the block, and on June 4, 1892, brought this action to recover one-half the purchase price, and half of the subsequent taxes and interest. The Judge charged the jury, among other things, that this contract might be used by them, but not to determine what the contract was between the parties; that must be found from the testimony outside of this agreement. He said; if you find that there was an agreement such as the plaintiff claims, and that in connection with that agreement an advance was made by the plaintiff, and made for this defendant in the joint enterprise of buying this property for the common purpose of the two and for the common profit of the two, then unless there has been some abandonment or release of the contract, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover. If on the other hand, you find that the contention of the defendant is correct, and that there was no joint purchase of this property, no mutual agreement between them with reference to buying this property for their common profit, then the defendant would be entitled to a verdict at your hands.

The defendant took no exception to this charge, or to any part of it, and made no request for any further or different charge. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $ 2,318.48. Defendant moved for a new trial, and being denied, appeals.

Order affirmed.

R. B. Galusha, for appellant.

Lewis E. Jones, for respondent.

Dickinson, J. Vanderburgh, J., did not participate.

OPINION

Dickinson, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order refusing a new trial. The case of the plaintiff, as set forth in his complaint, and as presented at the trial, was, in brief, that these parties entered into an agreement, which he claims to have been...