Carlson v. Kroeger, 22605.
| Decision Date | 10 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 22605.,22605. |
| Citation | 151 Minn. 343,186 N.W. 705 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | CARLSON et al. v. KROEGER. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Martin County; E. C. Dean, Judge.
Action by Clara Carlson, as executrix of the estate of Lars Carlson, deceased, and another against John Kroeger, and from an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial, the defendant appeals. Order affirmed.
The evidence sufficiently supports the verdict upon the special issue submitted.
The evidence, in order to justify the reformation of a written contract, must not only preponderate in favor of the party seeking reformation, but must be clear and strong, or, as also expressed, satisfactory and convincing upon the controverted issues.
The charge of the court was that plaintiffs had the burden of proof and must establish the issue by a fair preponderance of the evidence. No request to instruct as to the character or quality of the evidence was made, and no suggestion given that the instruction should be modified or amplified before the jury retired. It is held that a reversal cannot be based upon the instruction referred to.
No ruling during the trial is subject to substantial criticism.
The issue determined by the jury in plaintiffs' favor does not necessarily call for findings in their favor upon the issues left for the court's determination. Sasse & French, of Austin, and Ballou & Ballou, of Fairmont, for appellant.
Allen, Seifert & Allen, of Fairmont, for respondents.
The action is to reform an executory contract for the sale of a farm in Martin county, and for specific performance of the contract as reformed. The following issue was settled to be tried to a jury, viz:
‘Did the defendant agree to pay and assume the ditch lien upon the farm?’
The answer of the jury was in the affirmative. The appeal is from the order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
When the evidence was in, defendant moved the court that the jury be instructed to answer the question submitted in the negative, and that findings and order for judgment be made in his favor. It is true that, upon the pleadings and the undisputed facts brought out at the trial, defendant would be entitled to the findings asked if the evidence compelled a negative answer to the question; but the correct practice would seem to be that defendant's motion should be confined to an instructed verdict in his favor on the issue tried to the jury. It was a court case and findings must be made wherein is to be incorporated the special finding and verdict of the jury. Our examination of the evidence will be limited to the propositions whether there is sufficient evidence to support the special verdict and whether there are errors in the record.
[1] Plaintiff, Lars Carlson, a retired farmer living at Triumph, Minn., owned the farm in question located a short distance from the village. Defendant's son Frank and one Harris were in partnership, selling lands around Triumph. Both, however, devoted most of their time to other businesses in which they had no mutual interests. On May 26, 1919, Harris solicited the sale of Lars Carlson's farm. Carlson stated that his price was $175 per acre, the purchaser to assume and pay the ditch lien thereon. Shortly afterwards, on the same day, Frank Kroeger and Harris together talked with Carlson, and Frank listed or wrote down on some listing blanks the price and terms of sale. Carlson and Harris testified that it was positively stated that the purchaser must pay $175 per acre and assume the ditch lien. Frank said Carlson signed the listing contract. Harris denied this, and Carlson is not clear, but did testify that he did not believe he signed any writing. It was rather significant to a jury that defendant's son did not produce this paper at the trial. In the late afternoon Harris took defendant in an automobile and showed him the farm. He testified that he gave the price at $175 an acre, and the purchaser to assume the ditch lien, and that defendant agreed to buy on those terms. On their return to Triumph they found Carlson and Frank Kroeger. The four then went into the bank, and after some talk as to the amount to be paid...
To continue reading
Request your trial