Dallemand v. Swensen
| Decision Date | 28 June 1893 |
| Parties | DALLEMAND ET AL. v SWENSEN. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. An assignment of error calling in question the correctness of the findings of a court is of no avail when it specifies no particular findings, but is applicable alike to several.
2. Certain objectionable evidence considered as harmless because it could not have influenced the court in its findings of fact.
3. Proof of disbursements held sufficient for taxation of costs.
Appeal from municipal court, city of Minneapolis; Mahoney, Judge.
Action by Albert Dallemand and others against Peter P. Swensen, to recover personal property. Plaintiffs had judgment, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Geo. B. Robinson, for appellant.
Rea & Hubashek, for respondents.
This action was prosecuted by the respondents to recover certain personal property which the defendant, as sheriff of Hennepin county, had levied upon as the property of one Allen, under a writ of execution issued upon a judgment recovered against Allen and others by the business firm of Janney Bros. The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of the property, and that it was in the possession of Allen, as their bailee, for the purpose of sale. The defendant claimed that Allen was the owner. The court, trying the case without a jury, found, among several other things, that the plaintiffs were the owners, and directed judgment in their favor.
The defendant's third assignment of error is too general to be of any avail. Smith v. Kipp, (Minn.) 51 N. W. Rep. 656;Moody v. Tschabold, (Minn.) 53 N. W. Rep. 1023. It does not point to any particular findings of the court as being erroneous. It is applicable alike to all.
The testimony referred to in the first and second assignments of error, to the reception of which the defendant objected, was not properly admissible, but it was of such a nature that it cannot reasonably be supposed to have affected the decision of the court as to the facts in issue.
There is no merit in the claim that the proof of the necessary disbursements upon which costs were taxed was insufficient.
Order and judgment affirmed.
VANDERBURGH, J., did not participate.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nye v. Karlow
...findings of fact. Butler-Ryan Co. v. Silvey, 70 Minn. 507, 73 N. W. 406, 510;Mahler v. Bank, 65 Minn. 37, 67 N. W. 655;Dallemand v. Swenson, 54 Minn. 33, 55 N. W. 815;Moody v. Tschabald, 52 Minn. 51, 53 N. W. 1023;In re Granstrand, 49 Minn. 438, 52 N. W. 41;Smith v. Kipp, 49 Minn. 119, 51 N......
-
Nye v. Kahlow
... ... Butler-Ryan Co. v. Silvey, 70 ... Minn. 507, 73 N.W. 406, 510; Mahler v. Merchants Nat ... Bank, 65 Minn. 37, 67 N.W. 655; Dallemand v ... Swenson, 54 Minn. 32, 55 N.W. 815; Moody v ... Tschabold, 52 Minn. 51, 53 N.W. 1023; In re ... Granstrand, 49 Minn. 438, 52 N.W. 41; Smith ... ...
-
Cook v. Kittson
...30 N. W. 401;Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136, 43 N. W. 842;Express Co. v. Piatt, 51 Minn. 568, 53 N. W. 877;Dallemand v. Swenson, 54 Minn. 32, 55 N. W. 815;Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434, 56 N. W. 58;Johnson v. Johnson, 57 Minn. 100, 58 N. W. 824;Bank v. Wiger, 59 Minn. 384, 6......
-
Nye v. Kahlow
...Butler-Ryan Co. v. Silvey, 70 Minn. 507, 73 N. W. 406, 510; Mahler v. Merchants Nat. Bank, 65 Minn. 37, 67 N. W. 655; Dallemand v. Swenson, 54 Minn. 32, 55 N. W. 815; Moody v. Tschabold, 52 Minn. 51, 53 N. W. 1023; In re Granstrand, 49 Minn. 438, 52 N. W. 41; Smith v. Kipp, 49 Minn. 119, 51......