Hershey v. Welch
| Decision Date | 03 November 1905 |
| Citation | 96 Minn. 145,104 N.W. 821 |
| Parties | HERSHEY v. WELCH. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Meeker County; G. E. Qvale, Judge.
Action by Herman M. Hershey against Richard Welch. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Evidence considered, and held sufficient to support the verdict.
A person who holds the legal title to stock of a corporation, which has been pledged to a bank as collateral security for a loan, and who is able to get possession of the stock certificate at any time upon payment of the loan, may make a valid sale of the stock. H. S. McMonagle, for appellant.
Alva R. Hunt, for respondent.
The complaint alleges that on or about March 25, 1905, the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant 10 shares of the capital stock of the Litchfield Telephone Company, represented by certificate No. 68, for the agreed price of $300; that the defendant agreed to take and pay for the stock on or before May 1, 1905; that before the 1st of May the defendant paid as a part of the purchase price thereof the sum of $50; that on the 9th day of May, 1905, plaintiff tendered the certificate of stock, duly indorsed and assigned by the plaintiff, to the defendant, and demanded payment of the balance of the purchase price; and that the defendant then refused to accept the stock and pay the balance due thereon. The answer denies the agreement to purchase the stock and pleads the statute of frauds.
The only issue presented for the jury was whether the contract had been made as claimed by plaintiff. If the plaintiff's evidence was to be believed, it proved the making of the contract as alleged and a payment of the part of the purchase price. The defendant admitted that payments had been made, but claimed that he had entered into a contract for an option to purchase the stock, and that the payments had been made as the purchase price of the option. As the evidence stood, the issue was clearly defined, and was properly submitted to the jury. Their determination was final, and the order denying the motion for a new trial was properly overruled, unless there was some error of law duly excepted to.
Several of the assignments of error are too vague and indefinite to require consideration, and others seek to predicate error upon the failure of the trial court to give certain instructions which were not requested. These cannot be considered.
It was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial