Rushfeldt v. Tall

• Decision Date: 22 June 1917
• Docket Number: 20,456 - (236)
• Citation: Rushfeldt v. Tall, 137 Minn. 281, 163 N. W. 505 (Minn. 1917)
• Parties: HANS RUSHFELDT v. CARL TALL
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

163 N.W. 505

137 Minn. 281

HANS RUSHFELDT v. CARL TALL

Nos. 20,456 - (236)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 22, 1917

Action in the district court for Clay county to recover a balance of $567.74 for goods, wares and merchandise sold. Defendant interposed a counterclaim for $635, and tendered judgment for $188.84. The case was tried before Nye, J., and a jury which answered in the negative the question: "Was it agreed between plaintiff and defendant at the time defendant delivered the potatoes in question to plaintiff at his warehouse and cellar that said potatoes were received by plaintiff in part performance of the alleged contract of sale made on the 11th day of October, 1913, at defendant Tall's farm?" They returned a verdict for $576.25 in favor of defendant. Plaintiff's motion that the verdict be reduced to $256.10 was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, excepting only that portion which reads: "Now, therefore, on motion of the attorneys for the respective parties it is hereby adjudged that plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum of nine hundred sixty-six and 85/100 dollars ($966.85)," plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Verdict sustained by evidence.

This case involves only the question whether the evidence in support of a counterclaim sustains the verdict. Accepting the charge of the court, which was not excepted to, as the law of the case, the court is of opinion that the evidence does sustain the verdict.

W George Hammett, for appellant.

Charles S. Marden, for respondent.

OPINION

HALLAM, J.

The question in this case arises on a counterclaim. In the fall of 1913, defendant, a farmer in Clay county, had about 1,200 bushels of potatoes in piles and pits in his field, partially protected from frost. Plaintiff, in connection with a potato buyer named Augustein, called on defendant and had some verbal negotiation looking toward the purchase of defendant's potatoes. The negotiation was not effective because the statute of frauds was not complied with. Soon after this negotiation some of the potatoes were damaged by frost. Plaintiff and the potato buyer then refused to accept the potatoes pursuant to their verbal negotiation. A later understanding was arrived at, however, by which defendant was to haul the potatoes to plaintiff's cellar at Hawley, Minnesota, and this was done. Plaintiff received the potatoes and disposed of them. It is conceded that defendant is entitled to recover the reasonable value of the potatoes received. The jury found a verdict for $576.25 in favor of the defendant. This verdict apparently fixed the value...