Glassberg v. Olson

• Decision Date: 01 May 1903
• Docket Number: 13,447 - (43)
• Parties: M. GLASSBERG and Another v. O. H. OLSON
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

94 N.W. 554

89 Minn. 195

M. GLASSBERG and Another v. O. H. OLSON

Nos. 13,447 - (43)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 1, 1903

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Washington county, Williston, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Evidence -- Collateral Facts.

Whenever there is a conflict in the testimony of witnesses relevant to the issue, evidence of collateral facts, which have a direct tendency to show that the statements of the witnesses on one side of the issue are more reasonable, and therefore more credible, than those on the opposite side, is admissible. Rule applied, and held, that the trial judge did not err in his rulings as to the admission of such evidence.

Alvord C. Egelston and Egelston & Johnson, for appellants.

Manwaring & Sullivan, for respondent.

OPINION

START C.J.

Action to recover damages for the refusal of the defendant to award to the plaintiffs a subcontract for certain roofing and cornice work, pursuant to his alleged agreement so to do. Verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were engaged in the roofing and cornice business, and that the defendant was a general contractor; that on January 14, 1902, the defendant was desirous of submitting a bid for the building of a courthouse to be erected by the county of Renville, this state, and agreed with the plaintiffs that if they would prepare and submit to him a bid for the roofing and cornice for the proposed building he would, in the event of his being awarded the contract by the county, accept their bid, and award to them the subcontract for the roofing and cornice in accordance with their bid; that they gave to the defendant their bid for such work, which the defendant received, and submitted a bid for the erection of the building, which was accepted, and the contract awarded to him; and that he refused to award to them the subcontract for the roofing and cornice work, to their damage in the sum of $1,000.

The answer denied that the defendant ever made the alleged agreement; admitted and averred that he requested the plaintiffs to submit to him an estimate and bid for such roofing and cornice; that they stated to him that they would furnish the materials, and do the work required for the construction of the roofing and cornice, for the sum of $7,434; that this sum was so unreasonably excessive that he at once declined to consider the offer, and so informed the plaintiffs; and, further, that he did not use the plaintiffs' estimate and bid in preparing and making his own bid for the erection of the courthouse, but used a lower estimate, based upon other proposals therefor and his own knowledge. The reply denied the allegations of the answer.

The plaintiffs gave evidence tending to show that the defendant made the contract alleged in the complaint. They also testified in effect that the defendant requested the estimate and bid of them the evening...