Domestic Sewing-Machine Co. v. Anderson

• Citation: 23 Minn. 57
• Parties: Domestic Sewing-Machine Company v. Anton Anderson
• Decision Date: 14 June 1876
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

23 Minn. 57

Domestic Sewing-Machine Company v. Anton Anderson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 14, 1876

Replevin for a sewing-machine and attachments. Answer alleging property in defendant. Trial in the municipal court of the city of St. Paul, before Flint, J., who found as facts that, on August 11, 1873, one J. H. Mahler, plaintiff's agent, called at defendant's house, in St. Paul, and sold and delivered to him the machine and attachments described in the complaint, for $ 75; that defendant then paid to him $ 50 of the purchase-money, and it was agreed that the remainder should be paid in monthly installments of $ 5 each; that defendant afterwards paid the remainder of the purchase-money, except the sum of $ 5, which was due and unpaid on April 27, 1875, when this action was commenced.

The court further found that, on August 13, 1875 -- two days after the sale and delivery of the machine -- Mahler, as plaintiff's agent, obtained from defendant his signature to the receipt or lease set out in the opinion, which was prepared by plaintiff's general agent; that the defendant, a Norwegian by birth, had but slight knowledge of the English language; that the receipt or lease was not read by or to him before he signed it, nor was he furnished with any copy of it, nor did he have any knowledge of its contents till this action was brought.

As conclusions of law, the court found that the receipt or lease was void, and that defendant was the owner of the property replevied, and entitled to judgment of return, etc. Judgment was accordingly entered for defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

At the trial the evidence introduced by the plaintiff tended to prove that the bargain for the machine was made in the morning of August 13th, and that the machine was delivered in the afternoon of that day, and the receipt or lease signed when the machine was delivered; while the defendant's evidence tended to prove that the facts were as found by the court. The defendant introduced parol evidence tending to prove the making of an oral agreement for the purchase of the machine -- being the same agreement found by the court to have been made -- two days before the execution of the receipt or lease, to the admission of which evidence the plaintiff objected and excepted.

Judgment affirmed.

O'Brien and Eller, for appellant.

Chas S. Bryant and Wm. J. Parsons, for respondent.

OPINION

Berry, J.

Plaintiff delivered to defendant a sewing-machine, and, at the time of the delivery, defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff the following instrument, viz.:

$ 75. St. Paul, Aug. 13, 1873.

Received of the Domestic Sewing-Machine Co., one domestic sewing-machine, style H. C., plate No. 96,853, with the following parts, viz.: 1...