Schmitt v. Schmitt
| Decision Date | 17 September 1883 |
| Parties | Elizabeth C. Schmitt v. George Schmitt |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Scott county, Macdonald, J., presiding, and from an order of the same court denying defendant's motion for judgment in his favor on the special findings of the jury.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Brown & Hawkins, for appellant.
Southworth & Marrinan, for respondent.
This is an action for divorce upon the ground of cruelty, in which, also, the plaintiff seeks to have awarded to her certain real estate to which she claims title through an alleged conveyance from the defendant and herself, as his wife, to one Kopp, and from Kopp back to the plaintiff. When the cause was called for trial, the court, to which application had been previously made to settle issues to be submitted to a jury, proposed to submit to a jury such questions of fact as should be suggested to the court in the course of the trial, or such as should be desired by the parties. This being assented to, a jury was impanelled to find upon the questions of fact to be submitted to them, and the trial proceeded. Numerous specific questions were submitted to the jury, but no finding in the nature of a general verdict respecting the title in controversy was authorized. When the jury returned and submitted their verdict, no order was made by the court reserving the cause for further consideration. Four months afterwards, the plaintiff moved that further findings of fact be made by the court. Although this was opposed, the court did thereafter, without other evidence having been presented, make findings of fact in addition to those presented by the jury, and, upon the facts so found by the jury and by the court, award judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
At the trial there was introduced in evidence an instrument, in the proper form of a deed of conveyance, and purporting to have been duly executed by both plaintiff and defendant to Kopp, some years before. The controversy, so far as brought under review upon this appeal, was as to the execution of this instrument by the defendant, and its delivery as a deed of conveyance. He denied the execution and delivery. The jury found that the plaintiff signed the deed. The following questions submitted to the jury were answered as here indicated:
Question. Did the defendant sign, with his own hand, the said deed to Charles Kopp? Answer. No. Q. Did the defendant go to Herman Baumhager, the person who drew up the deed to Charles Kopp, and procure and direct said Baumhager to prepare said deed in manner and form as it now is? A. Yes. To the question whether the deed was ever "actually delivered to said Charles Kopp by any one," the jury answered "No." To the question whether the deed was "signed by the plaintiff and defendant in the office of Herman Baumhager, on a day prior to the day on which the deed from said Charles Kopp and wife was signed at the house of Mrs. Joseph Thiem," the jury answered "No." The jury further found that Kopp paid a consideration for the land.
The findings of fact made by the court were to the effect that the plaintiff executed the deed to Kopp at the defendant's request; that the name of the defendant was signed to the deed by his direction, for the purpose of executing the deed, and that he caused the deed so executed to be exhibited to Kopp, and received the consideration therefor, with intent thereby to convey the title to Kopp that in the presence of defendant, and with his knowledge and consent, Kopp and wife conveyed the same premises to the plaintiff, and that the defendant then delivered both deeds to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial