Halvorsen v. Moon & Kerr Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1902 |
| Citation | 87 Minn. 18,91 N.W. 28 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | HALVORSEN v. MOON & KERR LUMBER CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, St. Louis county; Homer B. Dibell, Judge.
Action by Ole Halvorsen against the Moon & Kerr Lumber Company. From an order granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
1. Declarations, whether verbal or written, made by a deceased person, as to facts presumably within his knowledge, if relevant to the matter of inquiry, are admissible in evidence between third parties when it appears that: (a) The declarant is dead; (b) the declaration was against his pecuniary interest; (c) the declaration was of a fact in relation to a matter of which he was personally cognizant; (d) the declarant had no probable motive to falsify the fact declared.
2. Rule applied, and held, that the declarations of a deceased person as to the origin of the fire that consumed the plaintiff's building were admissible as evidence in this case. M. C. Palmer, J. L. Washburn, and W. D. Bailey, for appellant.
John G. Williams, Billson, Congdon & Dickinson, Towne & Merchant, and James Wickham, for respondent.
On June 7, 1900, a building of which the plaintiff was the owner, in the city of Virginia, this state, caught fire and burned down, and from it there spread a fire which consumed a large part of the city, including another and distant dwelling owned by the plaintiff. At the time the fire broke out in the plaintiff's building, the first floor of which was used for a butcher shop, the saw mill plant of the defendant, situate some half a mile away, was in flames from a fire started on the premises of the defendant in or near a shavings bin, and which extended to its planing and saw mills. This action was brought to recover plaintiff's damages for the loss of both his buildings upon the alleged ground that the starting of the fire on the defendant's premises was due to its negligence, and that the plaintiff's building, hereafter referred to as the butcher shop, was destroyed by fire communicated from the defendant's burning mills. These allegations were put in issue by its answer. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $5,250, and the defendant made a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence, and for errors of law occurring at the trial, specifying them. Thereupon the trial court made its order in these words: ‘Defendant's motion for a new trial of the above-entitled action is hereby granted.’ No memoranda were attached thereto. The plaintiff appealed from the order.
In view of the form of the order and the provisions of Laws 1901, c. 46, we cannot presume that the new trial was granted upon the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence; hence we do not consider that question, but direct our attention to the question whether any errors of law were committed on the trial which justify the court's order. On the trial the question of the origin of the fire which destroyed the butcher shop,—whether it was from within or from without,—was an essential issue; for, if such fire was started inside of the shop, the conclusion would necessarily follow that its loss was not due to the fire on the defendant's premises; and if such were the case the defendant in no event could be held liable for the loss of the plaintiff's buildings. The evidence on this question was conflicting. There was evidence on the part of the defendant tending to show that the fire which burned the butcher shop did not originate from the burning of its mills, but that it originated in the sausage room of the shop, from the boiling over and taking fire of grease in a kettle therein; that the person in charge of the sausage room was George Schlink, who was dead at the time of the trial. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff tended to disprove the alleged fact that the origin of the fire was within the shop, and to show that it caught fire on the outside from brands, cinders, and sparks from the defendant's burning mills. Thereupon the defendant called as a witness Neil McLeod, who testified that he knew George Schlink, and met him in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sutter v. Easterly
...to a liability for damages, the statement is admissible. Weber v. C., R.I. & P.R. Co., 175 Iowa 358, 151 N.W. 852; Halvorsen v. Moone & Kerr Lbr. Co., 87 Minn. 18, 91 N.W. 28; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Strauch, 179 Okla. 617, 67 P.2d 452; Walker v. Brantner, 59 Kan. 117, 52 P. 80; Mohaska v. Ingall......
-
Weber v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
...is called to the note on page 673, and citation of cases in support of the text as reported therein. This case will also be found in 91 N.W. , at 28, and 87 Minn. In a few cases that have reached the courts, declarations have been offered and admitted where the party was not dead at the tim......
-
Weber v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
...and this was true in the case of Mahaska County v. Ingalls, supra, and Judge Dillon so states. See Halvorsen v. Moon & Kerr Lumber Co., reported in 94 Am. St. Rep. 669. Special attention is called to the note on page 673, and citation of cases in support of the text as reported therein. Thi......
-
Buck v. Buck (In re Buck's Estate)
...Brewing Ass'n v. Burt, 109 Minn. 323, 123 N. W. 932. And this ground of motion cannot be considered. Halvorsen v. Moon & Kerr Lumber Co., 87 Minn. 18, 91 N. W. 28,94 Am. St. Rep. 669;Sather v. Sexton, 101 Minn. 544, 112 N. W. 1142. [2] 2. We must accordingly determine whether the order for ......