Henslin v. Wingen
| Decision Date | 24 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 31618.,31618. |
| Citation | 203 Minn. 166,280 N.W. 281 |
| Parties | HENSLIN et al. v. WINGEN et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Martin County; Chas. A. Flinn, Judge.
Action to establish ownership of realty by parol gift and to bar adverse claims and quiet title by William Henslin and another against E. C. Wingen, as representative of the estate of Ferdinand S. Henslin, deceased, and others. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed and new trial granted.
Leo J. Seifert, of Fairmont, and H. L. Cave, of Truman, for appellants.
Putnam & Carlson, of Blue Earth, and V. V. Lindgren, of Winnebago, for respondents.
Plaintiff sues to have it adjudged that he is the owner of 80 acres of land in Martin county by parol gift from his father, to bar adverse claims of defendants and quiet title in him. He says that the gift was made on his wedding day, September 21, 1913; that on September 26, 1913, he took possession which he has retained ever since; that he has made extensive improvements as owner in reliance on the gift and has paid the taxes. Defendants, who are plaintiff's two brothers, three sisters and the representative of the father's estate, deny the gift and allege that the father permitted plaintiff to occupy the land in consideration of his payment of the taxes, that the father continued to exercise ownership over the land and paid for the improvements and the taxes.
Plaintiff's evidence shows that he lived with and worked for his father, without compensation other than keep, until he was married and took possession of the farm on the dates mentioned. Plaintiff's father and the bride's father gave the young couple enough personal property to begin farm operations. Since taking possession, plaintiff has made improvements on the land consisting of a barn erected at a cost of $1,400, a well installed at an expense of $217, a chicken coop costing $100 and shingling the house, repairs to the basement, chimney and steps, erection of a pump house and outside toilet, planting of fruit trees and repairs to fences, ditches and other improvements in an aggregate amount in excess of $2,000, which he paid for out of his own funds. There was evidence that plaintiff's father declared before the marriage that he intended to give plaintiff the farm and after the marriage many times declared that he had given the farm to plaintiff and that the farm was plaintiff's. Defendants' evidence tended to show that the father gave plaintiff the money with which to pay for improvements and repairs; that the father paid most of the taxes, all of the receipts for which showed that the father paid them as owner and that the father continued to exercise ownership and control over the premises notwithstanding plaintiff's possession. The record title is still in the father. Plaintiff admits the tax receipts were all made out in the father's name and accounts for this by the fact that the record title was in the father's name. He claims that he paid some of the taxes himself and that he reimbursed the father for the taxes paid by him.
A large part of the record consists of inadmissible evidence which the court below struck from the record and certifies that it did not consider in arriving at the decision. Fifty-three assignments of error are made, most of which are directed at the rulings with respect to such evidence.
1. The court excluded plaintiff's offer to explain why he stated, in the schedules in certain voluntary bankruptcy proceedings had by him, that, in consideration of rent of the land involved here, which was then occupied by him, he was indebted to his father for taxes on the premises in the sum of $99, which he promised to pay, and why he failed to list the farm as real estate owned by him. These statements in the bankruptcy proceedings were very persuasive with the court below. In a memorandum attached to the findings of fact and conclusions of law the court said that, if the plaintiff's evidence could be believed, it would justify a decision in his favor. As a reason why plaintiff's evidence could not be believed, the court stated:
"The fact that on filing a bankruptcy petition and schedules in 1927, he failed to list any real estate as being owned by him, and that in preparing schedule A-3 he listed a debt owing his father for rent of the very farm now in question, casts such reflection upon his present position that it cannot be explained away in the opinion of the court."
In effect the court denied plaintiff an opportunity to make the explanation which might have made his testimony credible. Denial of plaintiff's offered explanation was error. The contradictory statement of a witness does not of itself conclusively prove that the facts are different than his testimony. It shows that the witness "has been of two minds on the subject." The inquiry is to determine which version is true. To this end, explanatory circumstances, if any, are received. 2 Wigmore, Evidence, 2 Ed., § 1044. In State v. Reed, 62 Me. 129, 146, cited by the author, the court said as to a contradictory statement:
A party may always explain the circumstances...
To continue reading
Request your trial