Nash v. Larson
| Decision Date | 16 July 1900 |
| Docket Number | 12,064 - (199) |
| Citation | 83 N.W. 451,80 Minn. 458 |
| Parties | J. ADDIE NASH v. ANNA BROWELL LARSON and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action of replevin in the district court for Douglas county by plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of O. E. Nash deceased. The case was tried before Baxter, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict that defendants were the owners and entitled to the return of the property, that its value was $801.20, and that defendants had sustained $224 damages by reason of its detention. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Replevin -- Damages for Use of Property.
In an action to recover specific personal property (replevin), the rule which authorizes a jury to assess damages for the use thereof during the time it is withheld is adhered to. Qualy v. Johnson, supra, page 408, is followed upon this question.
Chattel Mortgage -- Declaring Forfeiture.
Deal v. D.M. Osborne & Co., 42 Minn. 102, followed upon the rule that the mortgagee of personal property cannot arbitrarily declare a forfeiture when he is authorized by the conditions of his mortgage to take and sell the same if he shall deem himself insecure. There must be reasonable grounds for his action in that respect, which is a question of fact for the determination of a jury.
Evidence of Waiver.
Evidence considered, and held sufficient to sustain the verdict upon the ground that certain conditions in the chattel mortgage may have been waived by the conduct of the parties interested therein.
Assignments of Error.
Other alleged errors considered unimportant and disregarded.
Grover & Massee, for appellant.
C. J. Gunderson, for respondents.
This is an action to recover specific personal property (replevin) embraced in a chattel mortgage given by defendants to one O. E. Nash to secure the payment of six hundred dollars. After the execution of the mortgage Nash died. Plaintiff was appointed his administratrix, and brought suit to recover the property described in the mortgage before the notes became due, upon the claim that the conditions of such mortgage had been broken in two respects, viz.: That defendants had disposed of a part of the mortgaged property, also that their course of conduct justified the plaintiff in deeming herself insecure, by reason of which defaults she became entitled to its immediate possession under an alleged breach in the usual clause in such mortgages, viz. that
"If attempt be made to remove or dispose of said property, or if at any time said mortgagee, his successors or assigns, shall deem the * * * debt unsafe or insecure, he is hereby authorized * * * to enter * * * and sell the same," etc.
The defendants had a verdict for the return of the property, or the value in case return could not be had; also damages assessed at a substantial sum for withholding the same.
The evidence in this case tends to show that defendants, who had been indebted to plaintiff's intestate, had an oral contract with a third party for the purchase of certain lands, and for the purpose of obtaining an extension of time on a previous debt made the chattel mortgage referred to, and included in such mortgage not only stock, consisting of cows, horses, etc., but the crops upon such lands (which they intended to buy) for the ensuing year. It also appeared that defendants were obligated to turn over a quantity of wheat each year grown on seventy-five acres of the land contracted for to the vendor in part payment of the purchase price. After the chattel mortgage was given, the verbal contract between the defendants and the owner of the lands purchased by them was consummated in a written instrument for that purpose to the same effect as the oral bargain referred to.
Owing to the death of Nash, his testimony was...
To continue reading
Request your trial