Meyers v. McAllister
| Decision Date | 19 May 1905 |
| Docket Number | 14,282 - (62) |
| Parties | W. E. MEYERS v. GEORGE McALLISTER and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Itasca county, McClenahan, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
Competency of Witness.
The question of the competency of a witness to give opinion evidence is a preliminary one for the trial judge, and rests largely in his discretion. His decision thereon will not be reversed where there is any evidence fairly tending to show competency, or where the witness is held incompetent, unless the decision is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
Evidence -- Value.
The trial court did not err in receiving opinion evidence as to the value of the property here in question.
Evidence -- Itemized List of Chattels.
It was not reversible error to receive in evidence a list of personal property, containing several hundred different items, shown to be correct by the testimony of the party who made, it, without formal and direct proof that he could not testify to the details independently of the list, it being obvious upon its face that he could not do so.
Evidence -- Lien on Goods Sold.
An unpaid seller of goods has a lien on them while he is in possession thereof, but the lien is divested by a delivery unless there is a contract to the contrary. Rule applied, and held, that an offer of evidence to prove a seller's lien upon goods which had been delivered was properly excluded for the reason that there was no offer to prove an agreement that the lien should continue notwithstanding the delivery.
C. C. McCarthy and Alfred L. Thwing, for appellants.
Frank F. Price, for respondent.
Action to recover possession of certain personal property, consisting of a logging outfit. The complaint alleged the plaintiff's ownership of the property, its value, and that the defendants on November 15, 1903, at Blackduck, this state, took the property from his possession, and detains the same. The answer admitted the taking of a portion of the property, and alleged that the part taken was of the value of $488.20, and no more, and claimed to justify the taking by virtue of an alleged seller's lien on the property. The reply put in issue the new matter alleged in the answer. Verdict for the plaintiff that he was entitled to the possession of the property described in the complaint, and that the value thereof was $600. The defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
1. The first contention of the defendant to be considered is that the trial court erred in receiving the testimony of two witnesses called by the plaintiff as to the value of the property, for the reason that neither was shown to be competent to give an opinion as to such value. An analysis of the evidence shows that there was but little controversy between the parties as to the aggregate value of the whole property, although there were material discrepancies as to particular items, and that the value as established by the verdict is not materially greater, excluding interest, than the aggregate estimates of the value given by one of the defendants. But this aside, there was no reversible error in the ruling of the trial court as to the competency of the witnesses, for the question of the competency of a witness to give expert evidence is a preliminary one for the trial judge, and rests largely in his discretion. His decision of the question will not be reversed where there is evidence fairly tending to show competency, or where the witness is held to be incompetent, unless the decision is manifestly against the weight of the evidence. Papooshek v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 44 Minn. 195, 46 N.W. 329; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial