McDonald v. Peacock

• Decision Date: 12 December 1887
• Citation: 35 N.W. 370,37 Minn. 512
• Parties: MCDONALD v PEACOCK.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

37 Minn. 512

35 N.W. 370

MCDONALDvPEACOCK.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 12, 1887.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

An instruction to a jury that a peculiar contract (embracing the terms of a lease of land to the plaintiff) constituted a sale to the plaintiff of a crop of grain grown on the land, held not prejudicial to the defendant, even if inaccurate; the effect of the instrument, however, construed, being to vest in plaintiff the title of the grain, and the question whether it was made for a fraudulent purpose (the real question involved) being properly submitted to the jury.

Evidence held sufficient to justify the verdict upon the question of fraud.

An objection that a written instrument offered in evidence is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, does not involve the point that preliminary proof of its execution had not been made.

The court may, in its discretion, control the order of proof.

Appeal from district court, Pope county; BAXTER, Judge.

Barto & Barto, for McDonald, respondent.

Bruckart & Reynolds, for Peacock, appellant.

DICKINSON, J.

The defendant, as sheriff of Pope county, under writs of attachment and execution against Thomas McDonald, levied upon and sold a field of grain growing, at the time of the levy, upon the land of the said Thomas McDonald. This plaintiff, James B. McDonald, claiming to be the owner of the grain, brings this action to recover for the alleged conversion. The plaintiff's right respecting the property was acquired under a written contract between Thomas McDonald and the plaintiff. By the terms of this instrument Thomas “demised, leased, and let” to the plaintiff the land upon which this grain was grown, “to have and to hold *** for the term of six months, or until the grain is secured for the rents and upon the terms hereinafter specified.” The plaintiff agreed to pay Thomas $300 to buy seed, feed, provisions, etc., or to furnish the same in whole or in part on the farm as might be most convenient; also to apply $300 upon an indebtedness of Thomas to the plaintiff. Thomas agreed to cultivate the land, sow, harvest, and thresh the grain, and deliver two-thirds of it to the plaintiff.

The court instructed the jury that this was a sale of the grain to the plaintiff, valid as between the parties; but left it the jury to say, upon the evidence, whether it was made in good faith, or to defraud the creditors of Thomas McDonald; the jury being further instructed that this bare transaction, without...