Rudsdill v. Slingerland

• Decision Date: 01 January 1873
• Parties: ANSON RUDSDILL v. T. S. SLINGERLAND.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

18 Minn. 342

ANSON RUDSDILL

v. T. S. SLINGERLAND.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court Dodge county, denying a new trial.

G. B. Cooley, for appellant.

S. L. Pierce, for respondent.

McMILLAN, J.

The plaintiff's ownership of the horse in question depended upon whether the defendant sold and delivered the horse to him. If the plaintiff was to pay the defendant $150 in the work on the granary, and the possession of the horse was delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant at the time, the sale was valid; there was no uncertainty or want of mutuality in the contract, and the property passed by delivery at the time of the sale. The making of the contract of sale, its terms, and the question of delivery of the horse, were all questions of fact for the jury. It appears from the case settled that there was evidence introduced by both parties on these subjects. The jury were no doubt instructed correctly as to the law upon the points involved, and by their verdict have found all the issues in favor of the plaintiff.

It did not appear to the court below, on the motion for a new trial, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, and after examining the case as presented to us, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence in the case to sustain the verdict.

The plaintiff having examined one Cynthia Norton as a witness upon his behalf, the defendant, for the purpose of attacking her credibility by impeaching her general character, called Henry Norton as a witness, and upon his being sworn, asked him the following questions: (1) "Have you means of knowing, and do you know, what is the general character of the witness Cynthia Norton in the neighborhood where she resides?" (2) "And if you know, is that character good or bad?" The plaintiff objected to each of these questions. The objections were sustained, and the defendant excepted.

The defendant then modified the questions as follows: "Have you the means of knowing, and do you know, the general character of the witness Cynthia Norton, in the neighborhood where she resides, for truth and veracity?" which was put without objection and answered: "I have; it is bad; I would not rely upon her oath." Several other witnesses were called to the same point, and testified in a similar manner.

The word "character" in these several questions is evidently used in the sense of "reputation," and in this sense we consider it. Witnesses do not come voluntarily into court but are brought there by the process of law. So far as this question is concerned, we must regard them as without interest in the litigation, and unbiased between the parties.

The only object in inquiring into the character of a witness, is to ascertain whether his statements, in themselves, are entitled to credit; if he is a truthful person, they are, — otherwise they are not. A witness, therefore, in coming into court would perhaps properly be considered as asserting...