Hanson v. Homeland Ins. Co. of America

• Decision Date: 12 January 1951
• Docket Number: No. 35268,35268
• Citation: 45 N.W.2d 637,232 Minn. 403
• Parties: HANSON et al. v. HOMELAND INS. CO. OF AMERICA.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 637

45 N.W.2d 637

232 Minn. 403

HANSON et al. v. HOMELAND INS. CO. OF AMERICA.

No. 35268.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 12, 1951.

Syllabus by the Court

1. It is elementary that a motion for a directed verdict, which by its very nature accepts the view of the Entire evidence most favorable to the adverse party and admits the credibility (except in extreme cases) of the evidence in his favor and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, should be granted only in those unequivocal cases where (1) In the light of the evidence as a whole, it would clearly be the duty of the trial court to set aside a contrary verdict as being manifestly against the Entire evidence, or where (2) it would be contrary to the law applicable to the case.

2. Not every conflict in evidence gives birth to a jury question.

3. The weight to be accorded an inconsistent statement or quasi admission depends upon the circumstances under which it was made, its purpose, and also upon whether its form and content were controlled or materially influenced by a party with an adverse interest.

4. A party has a right to explain contradictory statements made by him which have been received in evidence.

Robins, Davis & Lyons, and Sidney S. Feinberg, all of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Max Shapiro, Minneapolis, for respondents.

MATSON, Justice.

Appeal from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial in an action wherein a verdict was directed for plaintiffs.

In 1947 defendant issued to plaintiffs, who operate a commercial trailer sales business in Minneapolis, a policy insuring plaintiffs against loss by theft of any vehicles owned by the insured and held for sale. Plaintiffs stored and displayed the trailers in an open lot. Plaintiffs, alleging ownership of a secondhand Fruehauf trailer, brought this action on the policy to recover a $1,250 loss resulting from the theft of said trailer. Defendant denied liability on the ground that plaintiffs did not own the vehicle. At the close of plaintiffs' case defendant rested without introducing any evidence. Plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict was then granted. Defendant now appeals from an order denying a new trial.

Was it error to direct a verdict for plaintiffs? In other words, In the light of the evidence as a whole, was there an issue of fact as to the ownership of the stolen trailer which ought to have been submitted to the jury?

1-2. It is elementary that a motion for a directed verdict, which by its very nature accepts the view of the Entire evidence most favorable to the adverse party ¹ and admits the credibility (except in extreme cases ²) of the evidence in his favor and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, should be granted only in those unequivocal cases where (1) In the light of the evidence as a whole, it would clearly be the duty of the trial court to set aside a contrary verdict as being manifestly against the Entire evidence, or where (2) it would be contrary to the law applicable to the case. Brulla v. Cassady, 206 Minn. 398, 289 N.W. 404. The application of this rule gives rise to much misunderstanding when the significance of the phrase 'in the light of the evidence As a whole' is overlooked. The propriety of the court's action is not to be tested by a scrutiny and a consideration of only that part of the evidence which is favorable to a contrary verdict. In other words, if the evidence As a whole so overwhelmingly preponderates in favor of a party as to leave no doubt as to the factual truth, he is entitled to a directed verdict as a matter of law, even though there is some evidence Which, if standing alone, would justify a verdict to the contrary. Not every conflict in evidence gives birth to a jury question. Brulla v. Cassady, supra; Kundiger v. Prudential Ins. Co., 219 Minn. 25, 17 N.W.2d 49; Applequist v. Oliver Iron Mining Co., 209 Minn. 230, 296 N.W. 13; 6 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 9764.

In the light of the above rule, we turn to the facts. About October 14, 1947, plaintiffs sold a new trailer--for future delivery--to Oskey Brothers and accepted from such purchasers, as a trade-in on the sale, the Fruehauf trailer (hereinafter referred to as the trailer) involved herein. In the latter part of October, the purchasers delivered the trailer to plaintiffs' storage lot, where it at all times was in plaintiffs' possession until it was stolen on November 10, 1947. In addition to establishing possession, the following uncontradicted evidence was presented in support of plaintiffs' case:

(1) Order blank, orders, acknowledgment of order, invoices showing sale of new trailer by plaintiffs to Oskey Brothers, and trade-in by Oskey Brothers of the trailer in question to plaintiffs.

(2) Bill of sale, dated October 31, 1947, signed by Oskey Brothers, by secretary, to plaintiffs.

(3) Testimony by one of the officers of Oskey Brothers that the bill of sale was authorized to be signed by the secretary and that they had no interest in the trailer at the time of the loss.

(4) Letter dated November 8, 1947, written by plaintiffs to Oskey Brothers confirming the transaction and reciting that, although Oskey Brothers were entitled to a trade-in credit of $1,250 for the trailer, they had no further interest in the vehicle. This letter bore the O.K. of a member of the Oskey Brothers firm.

There was some testimony that prior to November 8, 1947, at the time when Oskey Brothers traded in their used trailer on new equipment, they were not satisfied with the amount of the trade-in allowance granted by plaintiffs and insisted upon some interest in the proceeds of the trailer in the event it was sold for over and above the sum of $1,250. This did not affect plaintiffs' title or right to possession of the trailer, but merely was a claim by Oskey Brothers of some interest in the proceeds in the event of a sale thereof. There was further testimony that this matter was adjusted by the letter of November 8, 1947. It was further testified that it was customary to deliver the used equipment, pending delivery of the new equipment, without making a transfer to plaintiffs of the motor vehicle registration card in order to permit plaintiffs to make a direct transfer from the original owner to any subsequent purchaser.

3-4...