Vallancy v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 20 January 1914
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

145 N.W. 132

26 N.D. 611

RICHARD G. P. VALLANCY v. JOHN C. HUNT, Martha Hunt, John Gardiner, and William McDonald

Supreme Court of North Dakota

January 20, 1914

Appeal from the Second Judicial District, Rolette County, Hon. Frank E. Fisk, Special Judge.

Reversed.

Judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, for the relief demanded.

Fred E Harris and Knauf & Knauf, for appellant.

Before a witness can testify as to value of property, he must show himself competent and qualified. There was an entire lack of such showing on the part of the witness Wilkie. Pyke v Jamestown, 15 N.D. 157, 107 N.W. 359; Guiterman v Liverpool, N.Y. & P. S. S. Co. 83 N.Y. 365.

A witness must show his qualifications before he can give expert testimony. Santa Cruz v. Enright, 95 Cal. 105, 30 P. 197; San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Neale, 88 Cal. 50, 11 L.R.A. 604, 25 P. 977; Jones v. Mechanics' F. Ins. Co. 36 N.J.L. 29, 13 Am. Rep. 405.

The judgment in the replevin action was a final judgment. It was directed by the supreme court, and is in form and substance sufficient. It is binding upon defendants, the Hunts, and is binding upon them and the sureties in this action. Cheatham v. Morrison, 37 S.C. 187, 15 S.E. 924; Craig v. Herring, 80 Ga. 709, 6 S.E. 283; Schott v. Youree, 142 Ill. 233, 31 N.E. 593; Boyd v. Huffaker, 40 Kan. 634, 20 P. 459; Johnson v. Mason, 64 N.J.L. 258, 45 A. 619.

When a return of personal property is adjudged in an action for its recovery, plaintiff, if he secured possession, must return same in a reasonable time, in the same condition, substantially, as when taken, if he would avoid the penalty. Cobbey, Replevin, § 1182; Parker v. Simonds, 8 Met. 205; Berry v. Hoeffner, 56 Me. 170; Capital Lumbering Co. v. Learned, 36 Ore. 544, 78 Am. St. Rep. 792, 59 P. 455; Jackson v. Morgan, 167 Ind. 528, 78 N.E. 633; Schott v. Youree, 142 Ill. 233, 31 N.E. 591; Kennedy v. Brown, 21 Kan. 171; O'Loughlin v. Carr, 9 Kan.App. 818, 60 P. 478; Hershler v. Reynolds, 22 Iowa 152; Boyd v. Huffaker, 40 Kan. 634, 18 P. 508; Paulson v. Nichols & S. Co. 8 N.D. 606, 80 N.W. 765, 6 N.D. 400, 71 N.W. 136.

In such cases, satisfaction can only be had by a strict compliance with the terms of the undertaking. 2 Black, Judgm. § 586; Cheatham v. Morrison, 37 S.C. 187, 15 S.E. 924.

The property must be redelivered in a safe condition and without deterioration in value. Fair v. Citizens' State Bank, 69 Kan. 353, 105 Am. St. Rep. 168, 76 P. 847, 2 Ann. Cas. 960; McPherson v. Acme Lumber Co. 70 Miss. 649, 12 So. 857; George v. Hewlett, 70 Miss. 1, 35 Am. St. Rep. 626, 12 So. 855; Washington Ice Co. v. Webster, 125 U.S. 426, 31 L.Ed. 799, 8 S.Ct. 947; Swift v. Barnes, 16 Pick. 194; Leighton v. Brown, 98 Mass. 515; Stevens v. Tuite, 104 Mass. 329; Maguire v. Pan-American Amusement Co. 205 Mass. 64, 137 Am. St. Rep. 422, 91 N.E. 138, 18 Ann. Cas. 110; Hazlett v. Witherspoon, Miss. , 25 So. 150; Yelton v. Slinkard, 85 Ind. 190; Berry v. Hoeffner, 56 Me. 170; Parker v. Simonds, 8 Met. 210; Carlon v. Dixon, 14 Ore. 293, 12 P. 394; Jordan v. La Vine, 15 Ore. 329, 15 P. 281.

F. T. Cuthbert & A. R. Smythe and H. E. Plymat, for respondents.

The return or tender back of the property in substantially the same condition as when seized or repossessed is all that the law requires. Fair v. Citizens' State Bank, 69 Kan. 353, 105 Am. St. Rep. 168, 76 P. 847, 2 Ann. Cas. 960; 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 538; Shinn, Replevin, § 679; Horn v. Citizens' Sav. & Commercial Bank, 8 Colo.App. 539, 46 P. 838; Jones v. Messenger, 40 Colo. 37, 90 P. 64; Three States Lumber Co. v. Blanks, 69 L.R.A. 283, 66 C. C. A. 353, 133 F. 479.

It is also true that there must be no deterioration in value. The witnesses who testified upon this point were amply qualified. Bailey v. Walton, 24 S.D. 119, 123 N.W. 701; Cochrane v. National Elevator Co. 20 N.D. 169, 127 N.W. 725; Withey v. Pere Marquette R. Co. 141 Mich. 412, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 352, 113 Am. St. Rep. 533, 104 N.W. 773, 7 Ann. Cas. 57, 19 Am. Neg. Rep. 309.

The condition of the property when taken must be established, and its condition when returned. This is the only way to satisfy this requirement, or to establish value. Fair v. Citizens' State Bank, 69 Kan. 353, 105 Am. St. Rep. 168, 76 P. 847, 2 Ann. Cas. 960; Jones v. Messenger, 40 Colo. 37, 90 P. 64; Washington Ice Co. v. Webster, 125 U.S. 426, 427, 31 L.Ed. 799, 800, 8 S.Ct. 947; Capital Lumbering Co. v. Learned, 36 Ore. 544, 78 Am. St. Rep. 792, 59 P. 454; George v. Hewlett, 70 Miss. 1, 35 Am. St. Rep. 626, 12 So. 855; Hinkson v. Morrison, 47 Iowa 167; Yelton v. Slinkard, 85 Ind. 190, 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 538.

The verdict of the jury is conclusive as to all facts upon which there is conflicting evidence. Johnson v. Glidden, 11 S.D. 237, 74 Am. St. Rep. 795, 76 N.W. 933, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 97; Baxter v. Campbell, 17 S.D. 475, 97 N.W. 386; Bedtkey v. Bedtkey, 15 S.D. 310, 89 N.W. 479; Edgemont Implement Co. v. N. S. Tubbs Sheep Co. 22 S.D. 142, 115 N.W. 1130.

Courts will not disturb verdicts where there is conflicting evidence. Caledonia Gold Min. Co. v. Noonan, 3 Dak. 189, 14 N.W. 426, affirmed in 121 U.S. 393, 30 L.Ed. 1061, 7 S.Ct. 911; State ex rel. Morrill v. Massey, 10 N.D. 154, 86 N.W. 225; Jasper v. Hazen, 4 N.D. 1, 23 L.R.A. 58, 58 N.W. 454, approved in Nichols & S. Co. v. Stangler, 7 N.D. 109, 72 N.W. 1089; Axiom Min. Co. v. White, 10 S.D. 202, 72 N.W. 462.

The jury are the exclusive judges of the facts, the evidence, its weight, and of the credibility of the witnesses. Casey v. First Bank, 20 N.D. 211, 126 N.W. 1001; Charles E. Bryant & Co. v. Arnold, 19 S.D. 106, 102 N.W. 303; Acton v. Fargo & M. Street R. Co. 20 N.D. 434, 129 N.W. 225; Drinkall v. Movius State Bank, 11 N.D. 10, 57 L.R.A. 341, 95 Am. St. Rep. 693, 88 N.W. 724; Heyrock v. McKenzie, 8 N.D. 601, 80 N.W. 762; Black v. Walker, 7 N.D. 414, 75 N.W. 787; Taylor v. Jones, 3 N.D. 235, 55 N.W. 593; Becker v. Duncan, 8 N.D. 600, 80 N.W. 762.

The tender of the property in question was sufficient. Capital Lumbering Co. v. Learned, 36 Ore. 544, 78 Am. St. Rep. 792, 59 P. 454; Frey v. Drahos, 10 Neb. 594, 7 N.W. 319; Gans v. Woolfolk, 2 Mont. 458; McClellan v. Marshall, 19 Iowa 561, 87 Am. Dec. 454; 34 Cyc. 1575.

On motion for a directed verdict, the trial court and the Supreme Court will assume the evidence of the plaintiff to be undisputed, and give to it the most favorable construction for a plaintiff possible. Ernster v. Christianson, 24 S.D. 103, 123 N.W. 711; John Miller Co. v. Klovstad, 14 N.D. 435, 105 N.W. 164; Northern P. R. Co. v. Vidal, 106 C. C. A. 661, 184 F. 707.

Only a tender or return of the property in substantially the same condition and value is required. Leeper, G. & Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 26 Okla. 707, 29 L.R.A.(N.S.) 747, 110 P. 655, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 302; Wells, Replevin, § 422; Shinn, Replevin, § 679; Cobbey, Replevin, § 1389; Washington Ice Co. v. Webster, 125 U.S. 426, 31 L.Ed. 799, 8 S.Ct. 947; Larabee v. Cook, 8 Kan.App. 776, 61 P. 815; Allen v. Fox, 51 N.Y. 562, 10 Am. Rep. 641; Yelton v. Slinkard, 85 Ind. 190; Edwin v. Cox, 61 Ill.App. 567; Harts v. Wendell, 26 Ill.App. 274; Archer v. Long, 47 S.C. 556, 25 S.E. 84; Reavis v. Horner, 11 Neb. 479, 9 N.W. 643; Johnson v. Mason, 64 N.J.L. 258, 45 A. 618; Pickett v. Bridges, 10 Humph. 171; Pabst's Brewing Co. v. Rapid Safety Filter Co. 54 Misc. 305, 105 N.Y.S. 962.

The burden of showing error is upon the appellant, since the presumption is that the trial court did not err. Clyde v. Johnson, 4 N.D. 92, 58 N.W. 512; Gould v. Duluth & D. Elevator Co. 3 N.D. 96, 54 N.W. 316; Selvage v. Green, 45 Ind.App. 642, 91 N.E. 357; Faulkner v. Baltimore & O. S.W. R. Co. 44 Ind.App. 441, 89 N.E. 511; C. Scheerer & Co. v. Deming, 154 Cal. 138, 97 P. 155; Runyan v. Snyder, 45 Colo. 156, 100 P. 420; Linson v. Spaulding, 23 Okla. 254, 108 P. 747; Pierce v. Pierce, 52 Wash. 679, 101 P. 358.

Error, if it exists, must be shown to have been prejudicial, material and damaging. Whitney v. Brown, 75 Kan. 678, 11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 468, 90 P. 277, 12 Ann. Cas. 768; Mageau v. Great Northern R. Co. 103 Minn. 290, 15 L.R.A.(N.S.) 511, 115 N.W. 651, 946, 14 Ann. Cas. 551; Johnson v. Walker, 86 Miss. 757, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 470, 109 Am. St. Rep. 733, 39 So. 49; State use of Hart-Parr Co. v. Robb-Lawrence Co. 17 N.D. 257, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 227, 115 N.W. 846; Grimestad v. Lofgren, 105 Minn. 286, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 990, 127 Am. St. Rep. 566, 117 N.W. 515; Kuhl v. Chamberlain, 140 Iowa 546, 21 L.R.A.(N.S.) 766, 118 N.W. 776; Madson v. Rutten, 16 N.D. 281, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 554, 113 N.W. 872; McClain v. Lewiston Interstate Fair & Racing Asso. 17 Idaho 63, 25 L.R.A.(N.S.) 691, 104 P. 1015, 20 Ann. Cas. 60; Shaw v. Lobe, 58 Wash. 219, 29 L.R.A.(N.S.) 335, 108 P. 450; Centofonde v. Camden Coke Co. 78 N.J.L. 662, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1058, 75 A. 913; Miller v. Northern P. R. Co. 18 N.D. 19, 118 N.W. 344, 19 Ann. Cas. 1215.

OPINION

BURKE, J.

In the year 1901, the defendants John and Martha Hunt purchased a threshing outfit consisting of engine, separator, blower stacker, weigher, and self-feeder, from a machinery dealer in Rolla, North Dakota, giving in payment therefor his notes secured upon the said property. Before the maturity of the said notes, they were sold to the plaintiff, Vallancy, who in the fall of 1905 instituted the foreclosure proceedings and replevined the property under a chattel mortgage. The defendants desired to retain possession of the property pending the action, and furnished a redelivery bond with the defendants Gardiner and McDonald as sureties, conditioned that the defendants Hunt "shall deliver the said property to the plaintiff if such delivery should be adjudged, and for the payment to them of such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants in the action." ...