Sanborn v. Webster

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Citation2 Minn. 323
PartiesJOHN B. SANBORN et al. vs. ALBERT WEBSTER.
Decision Date01 January 1858

This case was tried below without a jury, and the facts found were in substance these: The plaintiffs in error, (defendants below,) held a note of one Phillips for $200, fully secured by a mortgage upon real estate. This note and mortgage they assigned to the defendant in error, and, after this, they satisfied the mortgage of record, and the owner of the real estate conveyed it to a bona fide purchaser. The maker of the note was insolvent, and after the discharge of the mortgage the note was worthless. The note bore interest from date till paid, at the rate of four per cent. per month. Judgment was rendered against the plaintiff in error for the principal and interest at four per cent. per month.

Points and authorities for plaintiffs in error: —

That the amount of the damages found, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant below were excessive, and not supported by the evidence and law in the case. In this respect: Because not only the amount of the note was allowed, but also interest thereon, at the rate of four per cent. per month, from the 31st day of May, 1856, until the date of the decision, February 20, 1858, was allowed and judgment rendered therefor. See Sedg. on Dam. 68, 69, and 371.

Points and authorities for defendant in error: —

If the plaintiff is entitled to recover at all in this action, the measure of damages adopted by the court below was clearly correct. The destruction of his security by the defendants entitles him to recover of the defendants just what that security, had it remained intact, would have insured him, viz.: the amount of the debt and interest as prescribed in the note. Ferris v. Hendrickson, 1 Edw. Ch. 132.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

M. E. Ames, for plaintiff in error.

Brisbin & Bigelow, for defendant in error.

FLANDRAU, J.

After a very careful review of this case, we are unanimous that I erred in the measure of damages which I adopted on the trial below. The suit is in the nature of an action on the case for damages arising from the negligence of the defendants. I gave the plaintiff judgment for the amount of the note and interest at the rate of four per cent. per month up to the time of the entry of judgment, which was the rate of interest stipulated in the note. My view of the case at that time was, that having, by a careless act, destroyed the plaintiff's security, and consequently rendered the note worthless, the defendant would be bound to make him good for the whole amount of the note and interest. I am convinced now, that the proper rule of damages is, the value of the property destroyed at the time of the injury, with seven per cent. per annum upon that amount until judgment. Had the property destroyed or rendered valueless been a house or a horse, instead of a promissory note, the damages would not have been the value of the house or horse, with the amount added which the plaintiff would otherwise have received for rent or hire, but the value of the property destroyed, with seven per cent. per annum. The cases are the same in principle.

The majority of the court are of the opinion that the proof sustains the finding of the court below, in all its other essential particulars, and that the complaint contains a good cause of action. The chief justice differs with us on some points, and will submit his views on them.

We are clear that we can modify a judgment when the error committed goes to a part of the finding, and can be separated with certainty; in this case, the error was in the measure of damages adopted, being four per cent. per month, instead of seven per cent. per...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. Wolf
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 13 October 1961
    ...party has been defined as one who procures a reversal or modification of the order or judgment from which the appeal is taken. Sanborn v. Webster, 2 Minn. 323, Gil. 277; Henderson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 231 Minn. 503, 511, 43 N.W.2d 786, This appeal was from an order of the trial cour......
  • State by Mondale v. Gannons Inc.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 19 August 1966
    ...L.1959, c. 656, § 2.2 L.1963, c. 554, § 1.3 Henderson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 231 Minn. 503, 511, 43 N.W.2d 786, 792; Sanborn v. Webster, 2 Minn. 323 (Gil. ...
  • Propper v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 1 August 1952
    ...were made in providing a record and brief on the issues upon which the party obtaining the modification did not prevail. Sanborn v. Webster, 2 Minn. 323, (2) Gil. 277; Allen v. Jones, 8 Minn. 202, (8) Gil. 172; Henry v. Meighen, 46 Minn. 548, 49 N.W. 323, 646; Curry v. Sandusky Fish Co., 88......
  • Hildebrandt v. Hagen
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 29 April 1949
    ...were made in providing a record and brief on the issues upon which the party obtaining the modification did not prevail. Sanborn v. Webster, 2 Minn. 323, Gil. 277; Allen v. Jones, Minn. 202, Gil. 172; Henry v. Meighen, 46 Minn. 548, 49 N.W. 323, 646; Curry v. Sandusky Fish Co., 88 Minn. 485......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT