M'Clelland v. Nichols

• Decision Date: 05 October 1877
• Citation: 24 Minn. 176
• Parties: WILLIAM J. McCLELLAND <I>vs.</I> JOHN NICHOLS and others.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

24 Minn. 176

WILLIAM J. McCLELLAND vs. JOHN NICHOLS and others.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

October 5, 1877.

This was an action for the conversion of a certain "Vibrator Threshing Machine." The defendants, in their answer, denied each and every allegation contained in the complaint. The cause was tried in the district court for Freeborn county, by Page, J., and a jury. Upon the trial the defendants offered in evidence the following paper, marked "Exhibit A:"

                $100.                        OWATONNA, MINN., Sept. 6, 1871
                

On or before the first day of January, 1872, for value received, I, the subscriber, of Hartland, county of Freeborn, state of Minnesota, promise to pay to the order of Nichols, Shepard & Co. $100, at Bank of Owatonna, in Owatonna, with interest at 10 per cent. per annum until paid; if paid at maturity, 7 per cent. per annum.

* * * * * *

The express condition of the sale and purchase of said Vibrator Thresher is such that the title, ownership and possession does not pass from the said Nichols, Shepard & Co. until this note and interest is paid in full; that the said Nichols, Shepard & Co. has full power to declare this note due, and take possession of said thresher at any time he may deem himself insecure, even before the maturity of the note.

                  [Signed]                              W. J. McCLELLAND
                

The plaintiff objected to the admission of this paper in evidence, and his objection was sustained by the court. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, and, judgment having been entered thereon, the defendants appealed.

A. G. Wedge, for appellants.

Lovely & Parker, for respondent.

CORNELL, J.

Under a denial of each and every allegation of a complaint in an action for the conversion of personal property, the defendant, on the trial, has the right to introduce any evidence reasonably tending to show in himself a right of possession to the property at the time of the alleged conversion. Prior to the offer of "Exhibit A" in evidence, and its exclusion by the court, some evidence had been introduced reasonably tending to establish the following facts: That the property mentioned in the complaint was identical with that referred to in the agreement alluded to or contained in the exhibit; that the possession of such property was obtained from the defendants Nichols, Shepard & Co. by the plaintiff, and his rights in respect thereto were held under that agreement; that the note contained in the exhibit was given by him in part...