Hanson v. Balley
| Decision Date | 24 November 1905 |
| Citation | 104 N.W. 969,96 Minn. 274 |
| Parties | HANSON v. BALLEY. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Beltrami County; W. S. McClenahan, Judge.
Action by Christina Hanson against Ida R. Bailey, as executrix of Leslie H. Bailey. Verdict for plaintiff, and from an order granting a new trial, she appeals. Affirmed.
When the evidence in support of the verdict is contradictory, and not decisive, a new trial may be granted upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, although cumulative, contradictory, or impeaching, provided such evidence may have the effect of changing the result on a new trial. Chester McKusick, for appellant.
E. E. McDonald, for respondent.
Appellant and her brother were indicted for a criminal offense, and respondent was employed by appellant to defend her. A considerable sum of money having been paid into the hands of the attorney during the preparation and trial of the action, this suit was brought for the purpose of recovering from respondent the money which she claimed to have put into his hands for safe-keeping and which he refused to pay over. Respondent claimed that all the money he received from appellant had been used to pay fees and costs and disbursements incurred in the conduct of her defense, and that the other money in controversy was paid by appellant's brother for the purpose of conducting his defense. Upon the trial the question turned largely upon whether or not a $1,000 certificate of deposit had been sent to respondent directly by the brother, then residing in Canada, or whether it had been sent by the brother to appellant and by her delivered to respondent by the hand of a third party. If the money had been sent directly to appellant, to be used by her in conducting her own defense, then respondent failed to show any legal ground for retaining it; but if it had been sent to him directly by the brother, to be used for his defense as well as appellant's, then respondent would be accountable to him, and not to her. Appellant testified that she received the certificate of deposit in a letter from her brother, and that she gave it to one A. C. Hanson, who in turn delivered it to respondent, who afterwards admitted that he received it. This respondent denied. The jury accepted appellant's version and returned a verdict in her favor. A motion for a new trial was made upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, based upon an affidavit of Hanson, who denied...
To continue reading
Request your trial