Weiland v. Krejnick
| Decision Date | 24 December 1895 |
| Docket Number | 9639-9767--(224-225) |
| Citation | 65 N.W. 631,63 Minn. 314 |
| Parties | THEODORE WEILAND, Assignee, v. JACOB KREJNICK and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Scott county by Theodore Weiland as assignee of Frank Nicolin, insolvent, to determine the rights of all parties to wheat received in his elevator at New Prague by the insolvent before the assignment. Defendant Krejnick and certain other defendants had previously instituted replevin actions for part of the wheat. The evidence is stated in the opinion. The court, Cadwell, J. found as facts, among other things, that the said Nicolin was not a warehouseman within the meaning of Laws 1876, c. 86 (G. S. 1894, §§ 7645-7652) and did not receive said wheat for the purpose of storing the same in said elevator at New Prague, but for the purpose of shipping the same to his mill at Jordan and manufacturing the same into flour; that the wheat in controversy in these actions on the delivery thereof to said elevator became the property of the said Nicolin, and on his assignment for the benefit of his creditors the title thereof passed to and became vested in his assignee for the benefit of his creditors. As conclusion of law the court found that plaintiff assignee was entitled to all the wheat in controversy, and directed judgment in his favor. From an order denying motions for a new trial defendant Krejnick and the other defendants who had instituted replevin suits, and defendant Lyons and others being all the other defendants, appealed. Reversed.
Our conclusion being that the findings of fact were not justified by the evidence, the order appealed from is reversed, and new trial granted.
Southworth & Coller, for replevin appellants.
Frank Warner and C. E. Vanderburgh, for other appellants.
James McHale and Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for respondent.
This case, like that of Weiland v. Sunwall, infra, p. 320, 63 Minn. 320, 65 N.W. 628, grows out of the failure of plaintiff's assignor, Nicolin, but involves the title to the grain in another elevator, situated at New Prague; and there is no suggestion in either case that the adjustment of the rights of parties to the grain in the one elevator is at all dependent upon or connected with the adjustment of the rights of parties to the grain in the other elevator. The evidence in the two cases is also very different, and in the present case the claimants of the grain against the assignee all belong to the same class, which we will call "ticket holders"; and the evidence is the same as to all of them.
In this case, as in the other case, after Nicolin's assignment, some of the ticket holders brought replevin actions, in which they took possession of the wheat in the elevator. Thereupon the assignee, as in the other case, brought an action in equity, to which he makes all the claimants defendants, for the purpose of determining the rights of all parties; and, as in the other case, the replevin suits were consolidated with the equity case, it being stipulated that the determination of it should be a final determination of all the suits.
The sole question in the case is whether the contract under which the defendants delivered their wheat into the elevator constituted a sale or a bailment.
The elevator was owned and operated by Nicolin at New Prague, 12 miles distant from Jordan, where his mill was. It appears in evidence that his object in operating this elevator was to procure wheat for his mill at Jordan, and that all the wheat taken into the elevator, except a few car loads sent to Minneapolis, was shipped to the Jordan mill, and there...
To continue reading
Request your trial