New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Great Western Elevator Co.
Decision Date | 23 April 1897 |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Barnes County; Rose, J.
Action by the New England Mortgage Security Company against the Great Western Elevator Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Verdict and judgment vacated, and a new trial ordered.
P. H Rourke, and Winterer & Winterer, for appellant.
Young & Burke, for respondent.
This is an action brought by the owner of a chattel mortgage upon a crop of wheat against an elevator company, for the value of such wheat. The action was tried to a jury, and, at the close of the case, the defendant, by its counsel, requested the trial court to direct the jury to find for the defendant. This request was refused and, at the request of plaintiff's counsel, the trial court directed a verdict for plaintiff. These rulings are assigned as error in this court. Both sides, having requested a directed verdict, are in the attitude of consenting to the withdrawal of all questions of fact from the jury, and are also in the attitude of claiming that there are no disputed questions of fact in the case. In such cases, where, as in this case, there is no conflict in the evidence, the question is whether the court erred in its conclusion of law in directing a verdict. In other words, did the court, in directing a verdict, put a proper legal construction upon undisputed facts?
For the purpose of this decision, we shall concede certain facts to be established by the evidence, which defendant's counsel insists are not established. We shall assume that the undisputed evidence shows that plaintiff's chattel mortgage was duly filed, and covered certain wheat, which was raised and owned by the mortgagor; that, after such wheat was threshed, the mortgagor sold and delivered the same to the defendant; and that the debt is still unpaid. We further assume that the defendant converted the wheat to his own use and refused, on proper demand therefor, either to pay the debt secured by the mortgage, or to deliver the wheat to plaintiff. Nevertheless, it is our opinion, and we shall so rule, that the plaintiff has, through its authorized agent debarred itself from asserting or claiming a lien on the wheat. The evidence shows clearly that the agent knew of and authorized the sale of wheat to the defendant. The attorney for the plaintiff, who represented plaintiff in procuring the note and mortgage, and has at all times since their execution and delivery to him had the same in his hands, testified in plaintiffs behalf as follows: Upon the trial, one Thurber, a witness for the plaintiff, testified as to a conversation had at Valley City, between the mortgagor (Vold) and the plaintiff's said agent, as follows: On his redirect examination, the witness stated to Mr. Young, the agent who tried the case for pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial