Boyea v. Besch
| Decision Date | 05 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 21508.,21508. |
| Citation | 174 N.W. 894,144 Minn. 254 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | BOYEA v. BESCH. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Washington County; J. N. Searles, Judge.
Action by Anna Maria Boyea against Frank J. Besch. Judgment for plaintiff on the court's findings, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The findings of fact are sustained by the evidence.
The record does not present the question for review here whether defendant was erroneously deprived of a jury trial.
No reversible error may be predicated on the fact that defendant was called for cross-examination without being tendered witness fees, or that plaintiff's whole case rested on the testimony so obtained. Ch. Jaudon Berryhill, of Lake Elmo, for appellant.
O. E. Holman, of St. Paul, for respondent.
Plaintiff sued alleging that she and defendant, her brother, owned a farm in Washington county as tenants in common; that defendant was in possession; that in the spring of 1917 it was agreed that defendant should sow and cultivate the farm during that year, plaintiff to receive one-half of the crop and pay one-half of the expense of raising it; that defendant farmed under that agreement, but refused to deliver to her any part of the crop, and had sold or appropriated the whole thereof; and that the value of her share, after deducting her part of the expenses, was $250. Her prayer was that defendant be required to account for the crop harvested and for the expenses incurred in raising the same, and that she receive her share of the proceeds or of what remained of the crop. The court made findings in accord with plaintiff's allegations and awarded her $186.15. Judgment was entered pursuant to the findings. Defendant appeals.
The assignments of error assail the findings of fact as to the agreement, the reasonable value of the crop raised, and the expenses of raising the same. The agreement is found in a letter, Exhibit A, written by defendant to plaintiff on April 24, 1917, wherein, after making an offer for her interest in the land, he says:
‘Now about the this year crop the way it is now you will get half share in the this years crop and then you got to pay half of the expenses also.’
Then he goes on to renew the offer to purchase the land for $3,000, but, in such event, he wants the whole crop and all the personal property of hers on the farm. The letter clearly indicates an agreement in respect to the crops for 1917, unless a sale was effected. There was no sale. The letter was so worded that mere silence of plaintiff was an assent to the cropping arrangement which defendant stated as an existing fact. Under the agreement it undoubtedly was defendant's duty to keep an accurate account both of the crop...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Florence, 41823
...223, 68 N.W. 1072. Although it infrequently occurs, proof of plaintiff's whole case can rest on his adversary's testimony. Boyea v. Besch, 144 Minn. 254, 174 N.W. 894. Unlike the ordinary witness, an adverse party need not be subpoenaed to obligate him to attend a deposition; mere notice as......
-
Porter v. Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.
...rel. Blenzinger, 76 Ind. 94; Meloy v. Weathers, 35 Ind.App. 165, 73 N.E. 924; Sone v. Williams, 130 Mo. 530, 32 S.W. 1016; Boyea v. Besch, 144 Minn. 254, 174 N.W. 894; Banning v. Hall, 70 Minn. 89, 72 N.W. 817. However this may be, we will examine the statute concerning the right of trial b......
-
Schwend v. City of Birmingham
...v. State ex rel. 76 Ind. 94; Meloy v. Weathers, 35 Ind.App. 165, 73 N.E. 924; Sone v. Williams, 130 Mo. 530, 32 S.W. 1016; Boyea v. Besch, 144 Minn. 254, 174 N.W. 894; Banning v. Hall, 70 Minn. 89, 72 N.W. 817. How this may be, we will examine the statute concerning the right of trial by ju......
-
Vanderlip v. Bennett
...objection. With the record so there can be no successful contention that the plaintiff was wrongfully denied a jury trial. Boyea v. Besch, 144 Minn. 254, 174 N. W. 894;Banning v. Hall, 70 Minn. 89, 72 N. W. 817. [2] 2. The assignment that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the findings......