Jackson v. Sevatson
| Decision Date | 26 April 1900 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 12,004 - (37).,s. 12,004 - (37). |
| Parties | W. S. JACKSON v. ERIC SEVATSON. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
$518.15 and interest for conversion. The case was tried before P. E. Brown, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $458.88. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
O. Mosness, for appellant.
Wilson Borst, for respondent.
Action by plaintiff, as the assignee of several persons who were the original owners of certain wheat, to recover the value thereof, on the ground of an unlawful conversion by defendant to his own use, in which the verdict was against the latter.
1. By the testimony it was conclusively established that for some years prior to 1897 one Ewert was the owner of a grain warehouse on a line of railway in the southern part of the state, and engaged in operating the same as a warehouseman, and as a purchaser of wheat for himself and for defendant. He had control of the warehouse, bought wheat for himself as well as for defendant, and had the benefit of the storage, if any. To use the language of defendant when testifying:
In other words, such wheat as was purchased by Ewert and paid for with defendant's money became his property, and no storage charges were to be made by Ewert unless it remained in the warehouse more than fifteen days. Ewert's methods of doing business were those customary in such cases. If the wheat placed in the warehouse was purchased outright, tickets were issued directed to Ewert Bros., in which were specified the number of bushels, the grade, the price per bushel, the total sum due, and to whom payable. If no sale was made, but the wheat was stored or deposited in the warehouse, the same form of tickets was issued, but no price was stated or agreed on. The price or amount to be paid was to be determined when the depositor actually made sale.
These tickets were not in the form of those considered in Weiland v. Krejnick, 63 Minn. 314, 65 N. W. 631, but there was no practical difference. Nor did they contain the option clause made a part of the ticket or receipt involved in State v. Rieger, 59 Minn. 151, 60 N. W. 1087; but as was said, in substance, in that opinion, it was never contemplated that the wheat represented by the tickets was to become the property of another person until a price was agreed upon and payment made. The evidence was abundant to support a finding that as between the depositors of the wheat, plaintiff's assignors, and Ewert, who owned and operated the warehouse, these transactions were nothing but bailments. They were not sales, and consequently title to the property did not pass out of the depositors.
2. When Sevatson refused to furnish money to Ewert with which to pay for wheat which had previously been deposited in the warehouse, including that in controversy, there were several hundred bushels on hand. The defendant asserted title to it, and put an agent in charge. The depositors demanded of Ewert that he return the wheat represented by the tickets, or that he pay its value. He could not pay, and then aided these depositors in forcing an entrance into the warehouse. The latter then removed all of the wheat on hand, which amounted to 58 per cent. of the number of bushels previously deposited. The balance of the wheat deposited by plaintiff's assignors, 42...
To continue reading
Request your trial