Casper v. Klippen
| Decision Date | 11 June 1895 |
| Docket Number | 9453--(144) |
| Citation | 63 N.W. 737,61 Minn. 353 |
| Parties | CHRISTIAN CASPER v. OLE J. KLIPPEN and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for St Louis county, Ensign, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Reversed.
The order appealed from is reversed, and a new trial granted.
Handlan & MacGregor and Fryberger & Johanson, for appellants.
Crocker & Crandall, for respondent.
This is an action against the sheriff of St. Louis county and his deputy for wrongfully carrying away and converting to their own use a part of plaintiff's stock of groceries, of the value of $ 93. It is also alleged in the complaint that plaintiff was engaged in the business of keeping a grocery store, and that by reason of said wrongful acts of defendants his credit was destroyed, his business broken up, and he was obliged to sell the rest of his stock for less than its value. He alleges that by reason thereof he was damaged in the sum of $ 900. On the trial before the court without a jury the court found for plaintiff, and found "that the value of said goods so taken by said Ole J Klippen [the deputy], as aforesaid, was the sum of ninety-three dollars, that by reason of the taking of said goods from the store of said plaintiff, as aforesaid, the plaintiff was damaged in the sum of two hundred and ninety-three dollars," and ordered judgment for plaintiff for that sum. From an order denying their motion for a new trial, defendants appeal.
1. On the trial, plaintiff was permitted, against objection, to prove that after defendants had so taken away a part of his goods, he was, by reason thereof, unable to continue his business, and sold a portion of the balance of his goods, worth $ 176, for $ 99, which was the best price he could get for them, and that by reason thereof he lost $ 77. It was error to overrule this objection and receive this evidence. Such damages are too remote to constitute the basis of recovery, and there was no proof of malice or bad faith on which punitive damages could be awarded.
2. The court allowed plaintiff, against objection, to prove loss of future profits, caused by the business being broken up, as he claims, by the taking and carrying away of said $ 99 worth of goods out of a stock worth $ 324. This was error. It is well settled that damages for the loss of such future profits are too speculative, remote, and uncertain to be allowed. Simmer v. City of St. Paul, 23 Minn. 408; Cushing v. Seymour, Sabin & Co., 30 Minn. 301, 15 N.W. 249; O'Neill v. Johnson, 53 Minn. 439, 55 N.W. 601; Williams v. Wood, 55 Minn. 323, 56 N.W. 1066. There may be cases where a mercantile business is so well established, its profits so uniform and certain and subject to so few contingencies, that the doctrine of Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252, 2 N.W. 847, will apply, but they are rare. This is not such a case.
3. Defendants sought to justify the taking of plaintiff's goods under an execution issued out of the municipal court of Duluth against Charles Casper, whom they alleged to be the same person as this plaintiff. It appears by the evidence that one Messick and one Macauley, intending to bring an action in said municipal court against this plaintiff, served on him a summons and complaint in which the name of the defendant was written "Charles" Casper, while his true name is "Christian" Casper. Thereafter judgment was entered in that action against him as Christian Casper, by default, for the recovery of the sum of $ 17.64, and execution was issued thereon against him by the same name, under which defendants made said levy and took said goods. On the trial of this action Casper admitted that said summons was personally served on him, and that he was indebted to Messick and Macauley in a small amount, but he denies that the amount is as much as they claimed in that action. He did not appear in that action, and his true name is nowhere stated in the proceedings. The court, in effect, found that he was never known by the name of Charles Casper. On the authority of Atwood v. Landis, 22 Minn. 558, the court held that the execution, and all the proceedings in that action, were null and void, and no protection to these defendants.
The case of Atwood v. Landis is opposed to the great weight of authority, by which it is held that such a judgment is valid and that in all future litigation the true name of the defendant may be stated, and he may be connected with the judgment by proper averments. Crawford v. Satchwell, 2 Strange 1218; Oakley v. Giles, 3 East, 167; Smith v. Patten, 6 Taunt. 115; Fitzgerald v. Salentine, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 436; Parry v. Woodson, 33 Mo. 347; First N. Bank v. Jaggers, 31 Md. 38; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 59 U.S. 404, 18 HOW 404, 15 L.Ed. 451; Waldrop v. Leonard, 22 S.C. 118; Bloomfield R. Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial