Carlson v. Schoch
| Decision Date | 20 December 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 20990.,20990. |
| Citation | 170 N.W. 195,141 Minn. 236 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | CARLSON v. SCHOCH et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Hascal R. Brill, Judge.
Action by Ludwig Carlson against Andrew Schoch and the Andrew Schoch Grocery Company. Verdict for plaintiff against defendant Schoch Grocery Company, and, from an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant company appeals. Affirmed.
The plaintiff, a mortgagor, sued Andrew Schoch and the Schoch Grocery Company for the conversion of the property mortgaged. No cause of action was proved against Schoch. The evidence sustains a finding a conversion by the company.
Conversion does not lie when the taking is with the knowledge and consent of the owner; and this principle was sufficiently stated in the general charge.
In a suit by the owner the usual measure of damages for conversion is the value at the time of taking, with interest; but when the conversion is by the mortgagee of the property the measure is the difference between the value at the time of the taking and the mortgage lien, with interest.
When the case was submitted to the jury the parties adopted the view that the grocery company was in fact the mortgagee of the property alleged to have been converted. This made applicable the measure of damages last stated. In view of the facts stated in the opinion the court did not err in charging that the measure was the value at the time of the taking, with interest, and applying on the value found the amount found due on the mortgage lien after the foreclosure mentioned in the opinion; and leave is given the company to ask for a like application of an undisputed amount due on the mortgage lien at the time of the foreclosure but before sale. Harold Harris, of St. Paul, for appellant.
Hurley & Hurley, of St. Paul, for respondent.
Action in conversion. There was a verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant Schoch Grocery Company and it appeals from the order denying its motion for a new trial.
[1] 1. This was an action against Andrew Schoch and the Schoch Grocery Company for the conversion of personal property, consisting of horses and equipment. The defendants answered separately.
The defendant Schoch denied the conversion and counterclaimed upon certain notes secured by two chattel mortgages upon the property alleged to have been converted. The first of these was foreclosed after the alleged conversion but before the trial and title was acquired by Schoch at the foreclosure.
The defendant company denied the conversion. It claimed that it kept and cared for the property under an agreement with the plaintiff by which it was to have compensation; that it had a statutory lien therefor; that it foreclosed and obtained title; and it counterclaimed for the amount alleged to be due after the foreclosure of its lien.
At the close of the trial it was conceded that a cause of action was not proved against Schoch. It was also conceded that the plaintiff was owing Schoch upon the indebtedness secured by the two mortgages; and a verdict was directed in his favor on his counterclaim, the amount of it being left to the jury, and a verdict for $298.24 was returned. No complaint is made of this verdict.
The cause of action against the company was submitted to the jury and a verdict for $712.50 was found. This verdict represented the value of the converted property at the time of conversion, with interest, and negatived the company's claim of a keeper's lien and of a balance due after its foreclosure. The company claims that the finding of a conversion is not sustained. Our view is that the evidence made a question for the jury. A review of it would not be profitable.
[2] 2. The court refused an instruction requested by the company to the effect that an action for conversion does not lie when the taking is with the knowledge and consent of the owner. The requested instruction embodied a correct statement of the law. Tousley v. Board, 39 Minn. 419, 40 N. W. 509;Griffin v. Bristle, 39 Minn. 456, 40 N. W. 523.
A contested question was whether the property was taken under an agreement with the plaintiff and therefore with his knowledge and consent. The court in its charge put the issue to the jury clearly, and sufficiently stated the principle of law embodied in the defendant's requested instruction. There was no error in refusing to charge in the words of the request.
3. The usual measure of damages for conversion is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Mjk Clearing, Inc.
... ... , there was no unauthorized dominion over their property before it was sold in the market, and hence an action for conversion would not lie); Carlson v. Schoch, 141 Minn. 236, 238, 170 N.W. 195, 196 (1918) (stating that a correct statement of the law is conversion does not lie when the property ... ...
-
In re Mjk Clearing, Inc.
... ... , there was no unauthorized dominion over their property before it was sold in the market, and hence an action for conversion would not lie); Carlson v. Schoch, 141 Minn. 236, 170 N.W. 195, 196 (1918) (stating that a correct statement of the law is conversion does not lie when the property was ... ...
-
Hornblower and Weeks-Hemphill Noyes v. Lazere
... ... Carlson v. Schoch, 141 Minn. 236, 170 N.W. 195 (1918); Sittauer v. Alwin, 151 Minn. 508, 187 N.W. 611 (1922). Furthermore, interest is almost invariably ... ...
-
Nieter v. The McCaull-Dinsmore Co.
... ... lie on the score of the shipment of their grain. Griffin ... v. Bristle, 39 Minn. 456, 40 N.W. 523; Carlson v ... Schoch, 141 Minn. 236, 170 N.W. 195. We think there was ... abundant proof of consent to the shipment of the grain. When ... the grain was ... ...