Skaaraas v. Finnegan
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Berry |
| Citation | 31 Minn. 48 |
| Decision Date | 17 July 1883 |
| Parties | OLE W. SKAARAAS and another <I>vs.</I> ANDREW J. FINNEGAN. |
vs.
ANDREW J. FINNEGAN.
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Lochren, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
On January 10, 1882, plaintiffs and the defendant (the latter doing
Page 49
business as Finnegan & Co.) entered into the following agreement in writing, viz.:
"Received of Ole N. Skaaraas and A. Gothron fifty dollars, as earnest money, and in part-payment for the purchase of lot six (6) of Brott & McFarland outlots to St. Anthony, said lot being five acres, which we have this day, as authorized agents, sold and agree to convey to said O. N. Skaaraas and A. Gothron for the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars, on terms as follows: * * * * * said Skaaraas and Gothron to build a house on the said lot within three months from the date hereof; and it is agreed that if the title of said premises is not good, this agreement shall be void, and the above fifty dollars refunded; but if the title to said premises is good and not taken, the said fifty dollars to be forfeited.
"FINNEGAN & Co., Agents.
"I hereby agree to purchase said property on the above terms.
"OLE N. SKAARAAS.
"A. GOTHRON."
The plaintiffs went into possession under this agreement, and built a house on the land, and on January 27, 1882, were notified by Welles, the owner of the land, to quit the premises. Plaintiffs refusing to quit, Welles commenced an action of ejectment, and recovered judgment in the following June. Plaintiffs thereupon brought this action to recover the fifty dollars paid, the value of the house erected, and the damages occasioned by defendant's false assumption of authority to sell, and recovered a verdict of $704.85, made up as follows, viz.: cash paid and interest, $52.85, value of house, $200, and rise in value of land, $452.
As stated in the opinion, the defendant pleaded and offered to prove that the written contract was made, and was understood by the parties to be made, subject to the approval of Welles, and the offer was rejected. The defendant also objected and excepted to the admission of evidence to show the value of the land in June, 1882.
Jackson & Pond, for appellant.
Page 50
Arthur J. Shores, for respondents.
BERRY, J.
The defendant, assuming to be a duly-authorized agent for that purpose, made and delivered to plaintiffs an unsealed instrument, whereby, as such agent, and in consideration of $50 paid, he sold and agreed to convey to plaintiffs, upon performance of conditions specified, a tract of land....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Samuel H. Chute Co. v. Latta, Nos. 18,161 - (243).
...Merchants' Exchange Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542, 35 N. W. 434; Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313, 15 N. W. 255; Skaaraas v. Finnegan, 31 Minn. 48, 16 N. W. 456; Smith v. Page 73 58 Minn. 159, 59 N. W. 995; Mendenhall v. Ulrich, 94 Minn. 100, 101 N. W. 1057. Such evidence tends to prove a ......
-
Samuel H. Chute Co. v. Latta
...Merchants' Exchange Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542, 35 N. W. 434;Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313, 15 N. W. 255;Skaaraas v. Finnegan, 31 Minn. 48, 16 N. W. 456; Smith v. Mussetter, 58 Minn. 159, 59 N. W. 995;Mendenhall v. Ulrich, 94 Minn. 100, 101 N. W. 1057. Such evidence tends to prove a ......
-
Golden v. Meier
...930;Ware v. Allen, 128 U. S. 590, 9 Sup. Ct. 174, 32 L. Ed. 563;Thorne v. Ætna Ins. Co., 102 Wis. 593, 78 N. W. 920;Skaaraas v. Finnegan, 31 Minn. 48, 16 N. W. 456;Blewitt v. Boorum et al., 142 N. Y. 357, 37 N. E. 119, 40 Am. St. Rep. 600;Burke v. Dulaney, 153 U. S. 228, 14 Sup. Ct. 816, 38......
-
Moore v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Ass'n
...some future contingent event, though that be not expressed by its terms." This decision was followed in the case of Skaaraas v. Finnegan, 31 Minn. 48, 16 N. W. 456. The admissibility of such evidence is also recognized by the following text writers: 1 Bac. Ben. Soc. § 276; 1 Joyce, Ins. 96,......
-
Samuel H. Chute Co. v. Latta, Nos. 18,161 - (243).
...Merchants' Exchange Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542, 35 N. W. 434; Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313, 15 N. W. 255; Skaaraas v. Finnegan, 31 Minn. 48, 16 N. W. 456; Smith v. Page 73 58 Minn. 159, 59 N. W. 995; Mendenhall v. Ulrich, 94 Minn. 100, 101 N. W. 1057. Such evidence tends to prove a ......
-
Samuel H. Chute Co. v. Latta
...Merchants' Exchange Bank v. Luckow, 37 Minn. 542, 35 N. W. 434;Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313, 15 N. W. 255;Skaaraas v. Finnegan, 31 Minn. 48, 16 N. W. 456; Smith v. Mussetter, 58 Minn. 159, 59 N. W. 995;Mendenhall v. Ulrich, 94 Minn. 100, 101 N. W. 1057. Such evidence tends to prove a ......
-
Golden v. Meier
...930;Ware v. Allen, 128 U. S. 590, 9 Sup. Ct. 174, 32 L. Ed. 563;Thorne v. Ætna Ins. Co., 102 Wis. 593, 78 N. W. 920;Skaaraas v. Finnegan, 31 Minn. 48, 16 N. W. 456;Blewitt v. Boorum et al., 142 N. Y. 357, 37 N. E. 119, 40 Am. St. Rep. 600;Burke v. Dulaney, 153 U. S. 228, 14 Sup. Ct. 816, 38......
-
Moore v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Ass'n
...some future contingent event, though that be not expressed by its terms." This decision was followed in the case of Skaaraas v. Finnegan, 31 Minn. 48, 16 N. W. 456. The admissibility of such evidence is also recognized by the following text writers: 1 Bac. Ben. Soc. § 276; 1 Joyce, Ins. 96,......