Buse v. Page

• Citation: 20 N.W. 95,32 Minn. 111
• Parties: Ernest Buse v. Henry G. Page and others
• Decision Date: 20 June 1884
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

20 N.W. 95

32 Minn. 111

Ernest Buse v. Henry G. Page and others

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 20, 1884

June 20, 1884, Decided

32 Minn. 111 at 117.

Original Opinion of May 22, 1884, Reported at: 32 Minn. 111.

OPINION

The appellant having moved for a reargument, the following opinion was filed June 20, 1884:

The Court.

This action was brought, (see the pleadings and issues,) tried below, (see settled case,) decided below, (see findings,) argued here, (see briefs,) and decided here, (see opinion,) upon the basis that two distinct issues were involved, viz.: (1) Was the transaction between Opperman and Corliss a sale, or a mortgage, in fact? (2) Was its character as a sale determined so as to be res adjudicata in the former action? Or, as otherwise stated: (1) Was the transaction in fact a mortgage or sale? and (2) whether it was or not, did the judgment estop plaintiff from claiming that it was a mortgage? These two issues were kept separate on the trial and in the findings, and in the argument here. There is not a word in either brief to the effect that the findings upon the first issue were anything other than what they purport to be, viz., findings of the facts of the original transaction as they took place, and not of facts which (whether they ever really existed or not) the plaintiff was estopped to deny. The idea that the finding that no security was intended, but a sale with right of repurchase, was influenced by the supposed estoppel of the judgment, or in any way depended upon it, is, so far as the briefs show, an after-thought. It is to be added that defendants' brief expressly makes the point that whether the judgment in the former action is valid or not, the judgment in this action should be affirmed upon the finding that the transaction between Corliss and Opperman was a sale.

From the foregoing it follows, as remarked in the opinion on file in this case, that it was unnecessary for this court to consider the effect of the former judgment. The motion for a reargument is accordingly denied.