Elwood v. Saterlie

• Decision Date: 07 May 1897
• Citation: 71 N.W. 13,68 Minn. 173
• Parties: ELWOOD v SATERLIE ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

68 Minn. 173

71 N.W. 13

ELWOODvSATERLIE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 7, 1897.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Held, the verdict is sustained by the evidence.

2. The statements of a third person in possession of property, as to whom he holds it for, or as to who is the owner of it, are not hearsay, but competent evidence to prove the facts stated. They are a part of the res gestæ, and characterize the possession.

3. Where an issue in the case has been submitted to the jury, and they have made a special finding on the same, which is conclusive of the rights of the parties, if that finding must stand, it is immaterial that the court may have erred in its manner of submitting to the jury another separate and distinct issue.

Appeal from district court, Swift county; Gorham Powers, Judge.

Action by W. L. Elwood against S. S. Saterlie and others. Verdict for defendants. From an order refusing a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

F. M. Thornton and S. H. Hudson, for appellant.

T. F. Young and M. A. Spooner, for respondents.

Canty, J.

This is an action on a promissory note made by defendants to the order of W. A. Godwin & Son, and by them indorsed to plaintiff. The defense is that the note was given for part of the purchase price of a stallion bought by defendants S. S. and L. S. Saterlie from Godwin & Son, who warranted the horse in several respects, and as to such horse fraudulently made certain false statements which the purchasers believed, and on which they relied, and were induced thereby to purchase the horse. There are further allegations in the answer which state a good counterclaim or recoupment as against Godwin & Son for damages to the full amount of the note, for breach of such warranty, and for such false representations. It is further alleged that at the time of such purchase plaintiff was in fact the owner of the horse, and Godwin & Son were merely his agents for the sale of the same, and that the note in suit was taken in the name of Godwin & Son, and indorsed to plaintiff, as a part of the scheme of Godwin & Son and plaintiff to defraud defendants, and that at the time he took said note plaintiff knew all of the facts as to such breach of warranty, false representations, and fraud. On the trial the jury returned a general verdict for defendants, and also found the following special finding: “Question. At the time of the sale of the horse St. Hilaire to the defendants, was said horse owned by W. L. Elwood, the plaintiff? Answer. Yes.” From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

1. Both parties assume that the general verdict is controlled by the special finding, and that, if the latter is not sustained by the evidence, the former must fall. Whether or not this assumption is correct, we will not consider. Plaintiff has been for many years engaged in the business of importing, breeding, and selling horses at Dekalb, Ill. Godwin & Son were located at Benson, Minn. In 1891 plaintiff delivered to Godwin & Son, at Benson, seven stallions, one of them being the horse in question. It is claimed by plaintiff that these horses were sold to Godwin & Son wholly on credit, on open book account, pursuant to arrangements made between the parties at Dekalb. Godwin & Son sold these horses to different parties, took for the purchase price negotiable notes payable to themselves, and indorsed all of these notes over to plaintiff. In making these sales, Godwin & Son gave in their own name written warranties, the printed blanks for which contained the address and advertisement of plaintiff at Dekalb. One of these horses was sold by Godwin & Son to one Foix. The latter, being dissatisfied with his horse, wrote to plaintiff at Dekalb, and asked him to exchange the horse for another, pursuant to the terms of the warranty received by Foix from Godwin & Son. Plaintiff, writing from Dekalb, answered the letter, and advised Foix to keep the horse he had until such horse became more fully acclimated, and added: “We are pretty well closed out of horses here now, so that we would have nothing that we could...