Wilson v. Reedy

• Decision Date: 01 July 1885
• Citation: 33 Minn. 503
• Parties: WILLIAM WILSON <I>vs.</I> PATRICK REEDY and another.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 503

33 Minn. 503

WILLIAM WILSONvs.PATRICK REEDY and another.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 1, 1885.

The defendants purchased a harvesting and binding machine of plaintiff, as agent for George Esterly & Son, for the sum of $300, and in part-payment gave two promissory notes, each for the sum of $100.This action was brought in the district court for Wabasha county, to recover the amount of these notes, which plaintiff alleges were duly sold and transferred to him, though not indorsed by the payees.The answer pleads a counterclaim, by way of recoupment, for an alleged breach of a warranty made upon the sale of the machine.

On the trial before Start, J., the defendantHugh Reedy was allowed to testify, against plaintiff's objection, to admissions made by plaintiff, after he became the owner of the notes and when he was endeavoring to make the machine work, to the effect that the machine was defective.The plaintiff had a verdict for $50 and interest, and appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

E. M. Card and Abbott E. Smith, for appellant.

Henry D. Stocker, for respondents.

MITCHELL, J.

This case has already been before the court on a former appeal.32 Minn. 256.The assignments of error on this appeal can be disposed of very briefly.

1.Wilson being a party to the action, any admissions by him as to any fact material to the issues were competent evidence against himself.The contention that his admissions are only admissible against him when they would have been admissible against Esterly & Son, as the admissions of their agent, had they brought the suit, is untenable.

2.The question propounded to the witness Chalmers, viz., "Was the trouble with the machine, or the incompetency of these men to run it?" was properly excluded.Even assuming that he was an expert as to the character and use of such machinery, it was not competent for the witness to express an opinion as to the general merits of the case.This was virtually what the question called for.This was for the jury.

3.The question asked defendants, viz., "What was the machine worth in the condition it was at the time you bought it?" was competent.In Osborne v. Marks, ante, 56, the question allowed was, what the machine was worth as a harvester and binder.This was held error, because it was limited to the value for a specific purpose.The question in the present case called for the value generally.

4.The court was correct in instructing the jury to deduct the amount...