Johnson v. Oswald

• Decision Date: 18 June 1888
• Citation: 38 Minn. 550,38 N.W. 630
• Parties: JOHNSON v OSWALD ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

38 Minn. 550

38 N.W. 630

JOHNSONvOSWALD ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 18, 1888.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

In an action for the conversion of personal property, the complaint alleging title in plaintiff, notwithstanding how he acquired it, the defendant may, on the trial, under a denial of plaintiff's title, show anything that will disprove the allegation; as, if it appear that plaintiff claims title through a sale by defendant, he may show fraud to avoid the sale, and his rescission of it.

Appeal from municipal court, city of Minneapolis; MAHONEY, Judge.

Action by Frank A. Johnson against J. C. Oswald et al. for the conversion of personal property. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Thomas Canty, for appellants.

Henry J Gjertsen, for respondent.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

This action was for conversion of personal property. The complaint alleges, generally, without referring in any way to the means by which he acquired title, that the chattel was the personal property of the plaintiff, and that he was in possession of it, and that the defendants caused it to be wrongfully taken from him. The answer is a general denial. The defendants offered to prove in substance that they, owning the chattel, were induced to sell to one Larson, from whom plaintiff claims to derive his title, by his (Larson's) false and fraudulent representations, and that upon discovering the fraud they rescinded the sale, and retook the chattel. There was already in the case evidence sufficient to go to the jury that plaintiff was not a bona fide purchaser of Larson's title. The court below excluded the evidence so offered.

The question raised is, can a defendant in an action for conversion, where the complaint contains only the simple allegation of title in plaintiff, prove under a general denial that the sale under which plaintiff claims title was void so as to pass no title by reason of fraud? The general rule is that “anything that tends to controvert directly the allegations in the complaint may be shown under the general denial.” Bond v Corbett, 2 Minn. 248, (Gil. 209.) Upon this rule it is held that in an action in replevin or for conversion a denial of the simple allegation of plaintiff's title will admit proof of title in defendant or a third person,-Caldwell v. Bruggerman, 4 Minn. 270, (Gil. 190;)Jones v. Rahilly, 16 Minn. 320, (Gil, 283;)McClelland v. Nichols, 24 Minn. 176;Robinson v. Frost, 14 Barb. 536; Davis v. Hoppock, 6 Duer, 254; Emerson v. Thompson, 18 N. W. Rep. 503,-for such proof directly controverts the allegation of plaintiff's title in the complaint. In the case of a sheriff, defendant, who seeks to justify his taking under process, on the claim that the sale to plaintiff was in fraud of the creditors of the person against whom the process runs, it has been held that a general denial of plaintiff's title is not sufficient. Frisbee v. Langworthy, 11 Wis. 375. The rule in this state, in the case of an officer justifying under process is stated in Kenney v. Goergen, 36 Minn. 190,31 N. W. Rep. 210,...