Hedderly v. Backus
| Decision Date | 07 April 1893 |
| Citation | 55 N.W. 116,53 Minn. 27 |
| Parties | Alfred H. Hedderly v. Edward W. Backus |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Argued January 20, 1893.
Application for reargument denied April 19, 1893.
Appeal by plaintiff, Alfred H. Hedderly, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Smith, J., made August 22 1892, denying his motion for a new trial.
By his complaint the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Edward W Backus, on September 26, 1891, at Minneapolis, took, carried away and converted to his own use a certain dark bay stallion, three years old, worth $ 1,000, belonging to plaintiff, to his damage that sum, and he demanded judgment for that amount. Defendant denied that the plaintiff owned the horse. On the trial it was shown that J. C. McNaughton on April 3, 1891, sold the horse to plaintiff and gave him a bill of sale. On the same day plaintiff employed McNaughton to board and train this horse and two others owned by him and left all three of them with McNaughton for that purpose. Defendant then proved that Frank Thurston of Lake Crystal raised and owned the horse, and on October 18, 1890, sold him to defendant, and sent him by rail to defendant at Minneapolis, and that defendant employed McNaughton to keep and train the horse. On April 17, 1891, defendant paid McNaughton $ 63.75 for keeping and training the horse, and took him away. McNaughton died September 26, 1891, and soon after plaintiff demanded the horse of the defendant and brought this action. At the trial after the evidence was all given, the Judge directed the jury to return a verdict for defendant. It was done, and plaintiff appeals.
Order affirmed.
L. R. Larson, for appellant.
The case should have been submitted to the jury. It was error for the judge to direct a verdict for defendant. There was evidence to sustain a verdict for plaintiff. Cochran v. Stewart, 21 Minn. 435; Globe Milling Co. v. Minneapolis Elevator Co., 44 Minn. 153; Nixon v. Brown, 57 N.H. 34.
White & Egelston, for respondent.
It is conceded that McNaughton was in the custody of the horse at the time he undertook to sell him to plaintiff. Proof of possession, unexplained, creates the presumption of ownership, but it is a mere presumption, the lowest species of evidence, and it is liable to be overthrown by any evidence showing the character of the possession, and that it is not necessarily as owner. By undisputed evidence introduced by both parties, McNaughton's possession was explained, and he was shown to be a mere bailee for hire. Rawley v. Brown, 71 N.Y. 85; Lowery v. Erskine, 113 N.Y. 52. The custody of the property by McNaughton as a matter of law stands for nothing, and it was not error in the court, to refuse to submit that question to the jury.
The undisputed evidence, we think, would require the jury to find that the horse in controversy belongs to the defendant.
It is clear that his title is superior to that of plaintiff. He purchased the horse of one Thurston on the 18th day of October, 1890, and paid $ 1,000 for him.
He was...
To continue reading
Request your trial