Sloan v. Becker

• Citation: 34 Minn. 491
• Parties: SAMUEL G. SLOAN <I>vs.</I> GEORGE L. BECKER and Wife.
• Decision Date: 17 February 1886
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

34 Minn. 491

SAMUEL G. SLOAN vs. GEORGE L. BECKER and Wife.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 17, 1886.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Wilkin, J., presiding, refusing a new trial of specific issues submitted to a jury. The opinion on a former appeal is reported in 31 Minn. 414.

H. J. Horn and I. V. D. Heard, for appellant.

Bigelow, Flandrau & Squires, for respondents.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

The action was brought to have a conveyance of real estate, absolute in its terms, adjudged to have been intended only as a mortgage. No fraud or mistake connected with the execution of the deed is alleged. It is admitted to have been precisely in the form agreed upon by the parties, but it is alleged that it was agreed that it should be executed in that form to secure the defendant George L. for certain advances to be made by him in behalf of plaintiff. Issues were framed for a trial by jury, — among them one as to the intention and understanding with which the deed was executed. The evidence relied on to show that the deed was given as a mortgage was oral. In its charge to the jury the court below instructed: "The instrument upon its face is an absolute deed. He [plaintiff] asks you to find that there was an agreement in reference to that which converted it into security for money, or a mortgage, and it is incumbent on him to make out that fact by clear and strong evidence, such as satisfies the mind of the jury that the fact was as he claims it to be. A mere simple preponderance of proof is not sufficient. The evidence must be clear and strong."

This instruction was correct. The appellant contends, in effect, that in all cases where an issue of fact is tried by a jury, it is their exclusive province to weigh the evidence, and the rule, generally applicable in civil actions, that they may find the issue according to the preponderance or balance of the evidence, prevails. The fallacy of the argument consists in its assuming that the character of the tribunal which tries the fact determines what amount or degree of proof shall be required; for the amount of proof required depends on the character of the issue to be tried, and not on the tribunal trying it. Thus, in all criminal trials, whether tried before a jury or a magistrate, (in cases triable by a magistrate,) sufficient evidence to remove all reasonable doubts of guilt is required. This is because of the strong presumption in favor of innocence, and of the serious consequences to the defendant of an erroneous conviction. In civil actions generally a preponderance is enough, whether a trial is by a jury, or by the court without a jury. In suits for the reformation of written instruments on the ground of mistake, the rule is well settled that a mere preponderance of evidence will not suffice, but that the mistake must be shown by clear and satisfactory proofs. Story, Eq. Jur. § 157; Woollam v. Hearn, 2 Lead. Cas. Eq. (4th Ed.) 920, 980; ...