Goulding v. Ferrell
| Decision Date | 23 October 1908 |
| Docket Number | 15,909 - (190) |
| Citation | 117 N.W. 1046,106 Minn. 44 |
| Parties | JOHN W. GOULDING v. WILLIAM H. FERRELL |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action appealed from justice court to the district court for Mille Lacs county to recover $50 for damages to a certain sidewalk caused by leading a horse over it. The case was tried before Taylor, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for two dollars. Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial was denied and from a judgment for the amount of the verdict and $43.02 costs entered against him, he appealed. Affirmed.
De Minimis non Curat Lex.
Mere trifles and technicalities must yield to practical common sense and substantial justice. Therefore appellate courts, in cases not involving the trial of a right or personal character, will not reverse the judgments of trial courts for errors resulting in nominal pecuniary loss only, but will apply the maxim de minimis.
De Minimis non Curat Lex.
Where however, the evidence tends to show that a plaintiff has sustained actual damages in some amount, the case should be submitted to the jury; and, if a verdict for nominal damages only be returned, this court will not reverse the judgment on appeal of defendant, by applying the maxim.
Verdict Sustained by Evidence.
The verdict of two dollars in this an action to recover damages to the sidewalk in front of plaintiff's lot by the wrongful act of the defendant is sustained by the evidence.
E. L McMillan, for appellant.
Charles A. Dickey, for respondent.
Action to recover damages which the plaintiff claimed to have sustained by the wrongful act of the defendant in injuring a sidewalk built and owned by the plaintiff in front of his lot abutting on a public street in the village of Princeton. The case was commenced in justice court, and brought into the district court of the county of Mille Lacs by defendant's appeal from the judgment in justice court. A trial by jury in the district court resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for two dollars. The defendant moved the court for judgment in his favor notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Motion denied, and judgment for the amount of the verdict and $43.02 costs was entered against the defendant, from which he appealed.
1. The defendant's first claim is that this court should apply the maxim that the law does not concern itself about trifles, and reverse the judgment appealed from and direct judgment to be entered for the defendant. The basis of the maxim is that mere trifles and technicalities must yield to practical common sense and substantial justice; therefore appellate courts, in cases not involving the trial of a right or personal character, will not reverse the orders or judgments of a trial court for errors resulting in a nominal pecuniary loss only to the appellant, but will apply the maxim de minimis. A brief reference to some of our decisions will illustrate the proper application of the maxim:
The default of the assured in the payment of interest, to prevent forfeiture of his policy, amounting to four cents, is too trifling to be noticed. Van Norman v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 51 Minn. 57, 52 N.W. 988.
An error of eighty two cents in the amount for which judgment was ordered against the appellant by the trial court is too inconsequential to justify a reversal. Palmer v. Degan, 58 Minn. 505, 60 N.W. 342.
Where the trial court failed to deduct from the amount of plaintiff's claim, for which judgment was ordered, the amount of nominal damages which the defendant was entitled to, it was held that the error was too trifling to be considered on appeal. Singer Mnfg. Co. v. Potts, 59 Minn. 240, 61 N.W. 23.
The trial court directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff for one dollar. He appealed, and this...
To continue reading
Request your trial