Struckmeyer v. Lamb

• Decision Date: 25 January 1899
• Docket Number: Nos. 11,421-(208).,s. 11,421-(208).
• Citation: 75 Minn. 366
• Parties: WILLIAM STRUCKMEYER v. W. L. LAMB.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 366

75 Minn. 366

WILLIAM STRUCKMEYER v. W. L. LAMB.

Nos. 11,421-(208).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 25, 1899.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Martin county, Quinn, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Affirmed.

C. D. & Thos. D. O'Brien and Voreis & Mathwig, for appellant.

H. H. Dunn, for respondent.

BUCK, J.

This case was before this court upon demurrer to the complaint, and reported in 64 Minn. 57, 65 N. W. 930. It has now been tried upon the merits, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $225. The defendant moved for a new trial, and, this being denied by the court, he brings this appeal, alleging errors of law occurring at the trial and that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. Upon the last ground there appears to have been a sharp conflict in the evidence, and the weight thereof was clearly for the jury. We see no reason for disturbing the verdict, as it is sustained by the evidence.

The defendant's attorney, however, insists that errors of law occurred on the trial which entitle him to a new trial, two of which he seemed to urge more strenuously than the others, viz.:

1. The attempt to prove by the plaintiff, Struckmeyer, on his cross-examination, that he had a certain conversation with his attorney, a Mr. Fisk, at the time he commenced this action, in regard to what plaintiff would testify to as to buying the notes and mortgages in controversy, which evidence, being objected to by the plaintiff upon the ground that such conversation and communication by the client to his attorney was privileged, was excluded by the court. The defendant's counsel, in support of this contention, does not cite a single authority. However, it is not necessary for us to pass upon this question, as the defendant took no exception to the ruling of the court.

2. Defendant's counsel also attempted to prove, by the same attorney for plaintiff, certain communications between the plaintiff and the attorney (Fisk), and thereby show that plaintiff had stated to his attorney what he would testify to as to the notes in controversy. Upon objection being made by plaintiff, the court rejected the evidence upon the ground that the communication was privileged. The defendant excepted. Mr. Fisk was not acting as plaintiff's attorney in the trial of this action, but had prepared the pleadings, and was plaintiff's attorney upon the former appeal in this court. The communication offered to be proven...