Kincaid v. Jungkunz
| Decision Date | 07 January 1910 |
| Docket Number | 16,339 - (71) |
| Parties | EFFIE KINCAID v. FRANK F. JUNGKUNZ |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Wilkin county to recover $1,500 for the alleged conversion of certain household property worth $500. The case was tried before Flaherty, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, she appealed. Reversed and new trial ordered.
Conversion of Household Goods -- Charge to Jury.
Action for the conversion of household goods. The defendant claimed them under a bill of sale thereof, purporting to have been given by plaintiff's husband. The evidence was conflicting. Held, that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury to the effect that there was no evidence to justify them in finding that the bill of sale should not stand for what it appears to be, and, further, that they might consider whether the plaintiff's husband would have given the bill of sale, if he was not the owner of the property attempted to be transferred.
Chas S. Marden and W. B. Douglas, for appellant.
Houpt & Field, for respondent.
Action in conversion, brought in the district court of the county of Wilkin, on December 2, 1905, to recover the value of certain household furniture and goods, of the value of $500, of which the complaint alleged the plaintiff was the owner, and that they were converted by the defendant to his own use. The answer was a general denial. Verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed from an order denying her motion for a new trial.
It appears from the record, without substantial controversy, that the plaintiff's husband, John Kincaid, worked on shares the defendant's farm in the county of Wilkin, and that when he went upon the farm he gave a chattel mortgage to the defendant on his farm utensils and all crops to be raised on the farm, but not upon any household furniture and goods; that on November 2, 1905, the defendant took from John Kincaid a bill of sale of all of the property covered by the chattel mortgage, which also purported on its face to sell to the defendant all the household furniture and goods then in the house on the farm, except "bed covers and gifts," and, further, that the defendant on November 27, 1905, took possession of such household furniture and goods and sold them.
There was also evidence tending to show that the plaintiff, and not her husband, was the owner of the household furniture and goods, and that she never consented to the giving of the bill of sale thereof; that the plaintiff's husband did not read the bill of sale, nor was it read to him, nor can he read; and, further, that he did not know that the household furniture and goods were in the bill of sale when he signed it, and did not so learn until about the time the defendant took possession of them. On the other hand, the defendant gave testimony tending to show that the bill of sale was prepared in the presence of the plaintiff and her husband, that it was read over to them, and both assented thereto, and, further, that the household furniture and goods were put into the bill of sale by the defendant at the request of Mr. and Mrs. Kincaid, and that he did so simply to satisfy them.
The trial court instructed the jury as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial