Goodall v. Norton

• Citation: 88 Minn. 1,92 N.W. 445
• Parties: GOODALL v. NORTON.
• Decision Date: 05 December 1902
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

88 Minn. 1

92 N.W. 445

GOODALL

v.NORTON.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 5, 1902.

Appeal from municipal court of Mankato; Ira P. Schissler, Judge.

Action by George W. Goodall against E. T. Norton. Judgment for plaintiff. From an order denying a motion for new trial, defendant appeals. Conditionally reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A fact may be established by secondary or incompetent evidence, if material, when it is received without objection.

2. Payment by check is not absolute, but conditional, unless expressly so agreed; but where a creditor receives a check, and agrees to credit the amount thereof, the burden is on him to show that the check was returned, or that it was not paid on due presentment.

3. The evidence herein as to a payment by check was sufficient to take the question to the jury, and it was error for the court to withdraw it from them. A. E. Clark, for appellant.

W. R. Geddes, for respondent.

START, C. J.

Action in the municipal court of the city of Mankato to recover $66.53, the balance of an account against the defendant in favor of T. R. Price, and assigned by him to the plaintiff. The answer alleged, with other matters, that the defendant paid the account, except a balance of $14, to Mr. Price, before it was assigned. On the trial the defendant claimed that he had delivered to Mr. Price a check for $16.25 in part payment of the account, which he promised to credit thereon, but never did. The trial court instructed the jury to the effect that they must disregard the check, and not allow the amount thereof on the account. The defendant requested that the question of the payment of $16.25 by the check be submitted to the jury, which the court refused to do. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $55.83, and the defendant appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The sole question for our decision is whether the trial court erred in excluding the question of the payment by check from the consideration of the jury. If there was evidence in the case fairly tending to support the claim of the defendant, the question of the payment by check should have been submitted to the jury; otherwise not. We are of the opinion that the evidence made a case for the jury on this question. The defendant testified, without objection, that he had a check, which he had received from a railroad for boarding a surfacing gang; that he handed it to Mr. Price, and said to him: “Here is a railroad check for $16.25. Give me credit for it on my account.' He said he would when he got to the store.' He further testified that he turned the check over to him, and had never seen it since. After the defendant had so testified, he was asked if anything more was said, and answered, ‘Not at that time.’ Then the following questions were asked and rulings made: ‘Q. Was there anything said to him by you? A. I told him what the check called for,-$16.25. (Objected to by plaintiff as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.) Geddes: I ask that the answer, ‘$16.25,’ be stricken out, as stating contents of a written instrument. Court: I think it should be. (Exceptions by the defendant.) Q. You may go on, Mr. Norton, and repeat the whole conversation between Mr. Price and yourself. A. He was sitting in the barber chair. I put my name on this check, and said: ‘Here is a check for $16.25.’ I went in the barroom, as I said before. Tom was in the barber chair. I wrote my name on the back of the check, and said: ‘There is a railroad check for $16.25. Give me credit for it on your books.’ He said he would when he got to the store. Q. That was all you remember? A. That was all between him and me. Geddes: I ask that all that, ‘I wrote my name on the back of the check, and said, ‘There is a railroad check for $16.25,’' be stricken out, as stating the contents of a written instrument. (Motion granted by the court. Exceptions...