Rollofson v. Nash
| Decision Date | 09 January 1899 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 11,409-(187).,s. 11,409-(187). |
| Citation | 75 Minn. 237 |
| Parties | J. C. ROLLOFSON and Another v. EDWARD N. NASH. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
sheriff to recover $2,000 for the conversion of certain merchandise. The cause was tried before C. L. Brown, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiffs appealed. Affirmed.
C. J. Gunderson, for appellants.
Andrew O. Ofsthun, for respondent.
On November 18, 1896, Ole J. Lee, as plaintiff, recovered a judgment against one Mathias Rollofson, father of the plaintiffs in this action, for the sum of $251.45. The Rollofsons lived near the village of Hoffman, Grant county, in this state, one son being 25 years old and the other aged 22 years. About May 1, 1897, or the latter part of April, the plaintiffs started a store in Hoffman; and on September 18 of that year the defendant, Nash, as sheriff of that county, by virtue of an execution issued on said judgment, levied on a large amount of goods in said store as the goods of the father, Mathias Rollofson, claiming that the goods belonged to him; and thereupon the plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant sheriff, claiming that the goods levied upon were their property, and seek to recover from the defendant the value thereof, which they allege to be $1,200, and also claim damages for the interruption of their business.
The defendant answered, alleging that the goods levied upon belonged to the father, and not to the sons. At the trial the question of ownership of the goods was submitted to the jury, and it rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, and they appealed.
The questions of fact appear to have been controverted upon the trial; the controversy was actual and substantial; and there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.
Errors of law herein are assigned as to the admission of declarations of the father, Mathias Rollofson, as to his ownership or interest in the goods. It was conclusively proven that Mathias Rollofson was in the store nearly all the time where the goods were kept for sale.
While he was in the store alone, a man came in and asked Mathias Rollofson how much he owed him, and said that he thought the latter needed the money, and he came in to pay it. Thereupon Rollofson turned to the books, and told him the amount. The man paid it, and Rollofson gave him a receipt. This matter may be considered in connection with the testimony of another witness, who testified that during the months of June and July, 1897, when the father was in the store alone, a conversation took place between them in regard to the witness bringing a stock of goods up there, when the father said: "Well, I have this store, and I might get a chance to put in some clothing there." At that time he never mentioned his sons.
It is the contention of appellants that, as both plaintiffs were absent at the time the talk took place, it should not be admitted as evidence against them. But this admission that the father was there alone militates against them, for it shows that the father was then in possession and control of the goods.
About the time that plaintiffs claim to have commenced business, the father, although claiming to be insolvent, went to La Crosse, Wisconsin, and purchased merchandise to the amount of $1,000 of one Mons Anderson, and then paid him in cash $650, and it is fairly inferable from the evidence that this was the father's own money, less perhaps the sum of $50. These goods were shipped to the village of Hoffman, and several boxes were consigned to M. Rollofson & Sons, and receipted for by them, and some of the said boxes were consigned to M. Rollofson. The exact date when plaintiffs went into business is not satisfactorily stated, but it is not claimed that these goods so consigned to M. Rollofson & Sons did not go into plaintiffs' store, where the father was...
To continue reading
Request your trial