Hovda v. Blekre
| Decision Date | 11 January 1935 |
| Docket Number | 29946. |
| Parties | HOVDA v. BLEKRE et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Mower County; Norman E. Peterson, Judge.
Action by Oscar H. Hovda against E. O. Blekre, G. T. Torgrimson, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and G. T. Torgrimson appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court .
1. The evidence sustains the verdict that appellant aided and abetted defendant Blekre in fraudulently obtaining possession of plaintiff's stock certificate in a building and loan company.
2. Where the trial proceeds without any objection to pleadings and the settled case fails to show any misconduct of counsel assignments of error in this court that the reply is a departure or that counsel was guilty of misconduct are not well taken.
Fraser & Fraser, of Rochester, for appellant.
Sasse French & Dunnette, of Austin, for respondent.
The defendant G. T. Torgrimson appeals from the judgment entered upon the verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Blekre and Torgrimson. Blekre did not defend. Torgrimson moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial prior to judgment.
The action was in replevin for the possession of a certificate of 12 shares of the capital stock of the defendant the Twin City Building Association, owned by plaintiff, the possession of which had been obtained by the alleged fraud of defendants. The par value of the stock was $1,200. The errors assigned on the appeal go to the proposition (a) that there is no evidence to sustain the verdict, hence defendant Torgrimson was entitled to a directed verdict and to judgment non obstante; and (b) that the misconduct of counsel and the jury acting under the influence of passion and prejudice entitles him to a new trial.
We think the following is a sufficient statement of what took place relative to the subject-matter from the viewpoint of sustaining the judgment. Plaintiff after verdict is entitled to have the court presume that the jury accepted as true the evidence most favorable to him. On September 8, 1932, Blekre and one Trucsall went to Grand Meadow in Mower county, where they met defendant Torgrimson. The latter and Blekre were distantly related, and had been personally acquainted for many years. Torgrimson was 57 years old, had been a banker and for years had operated a general store at Grand Meadow. Blekre at the time was a stock and bond salesman. Plaintiff was over 60 years of age, a bachelor, and had owned and farmed 240 acres of land for 40 years, about two miles from Grand Meadow. He had had dealings with Torgrimson, trusted him, and was related to him by a sister's marriage to Torgrimson's brother. Blekre and plaintiff had never met before, though they knew of each other and were distantly related, plaintiff's brother having married a cousin of Blekre. Blekre at the time lived in Minneapolis. When in Grand Meadow he would visit Torgrimson, and be invited to stay for a meal. He and Trucsall were asked to stay for lunch and did so. Blekre expressed a desire to meet plaintiff, and Torgrimson offered to take them there in his car. They found plaintiff at home. There was some talk of selling him some Wabasha bridge bonds, during which it developed that plaintiff had this stock of the Twin City Building & Loan Association and thought it was a good plan to convert all stocks and bonds into cash. Blekre said he had an office near the association and could cash the stock certificate for plaintiff and bring back the money the next day. The result was that Blekre obtained the certificate, plaintiff signed his name on the back thereof, Blekre gave a receipt for it, and Torgrimson signed his name on the receipt as a witness. Blekre found, upon presentation of the certificate to the association, that only $150 could be had and the balance would be paid in installments. So he drew the $150, surrendered the certificate, and obtained in place thereof a certificate to his wife for $1,050. This certificate he sold to defendant Cote. In the deal Trucsall obtained a commission which was credited upon his room rent, long past due. Blekre did not return to Grand Meadow as he agreed, but telephoned Torgrimson his inability to cash the certificate. The following day he did return and attempted to settle the matter by turning over some stock in a sheep...
To continue reading
Request your trial