Stickney v. Bronson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL EROM THE DISTEIOT COUET OE WASHINGTON COUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellant: First. — Tbe District Court erred in admitting tlie memorandum made by tbe Plaintiff in evidence, for any purpose whatever, and overruling tbe objections made by Defendant’s counsel. Tbe memorandum was not properly verified. It ■was not made from tbe actual knowledge of tbe witness.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EROM THE DISTEIOT COUET OE WASHINGTON COUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellant: First. — Tbe District Court erred in admitting tlie memorandum made by tbe Plaintiff in evidence, for any purpose whatever, and overruling tbe objections made by Defendant’s counsel. Tbe memorandum was not properly verified. It ■was not made from tbe actual knowledge of tbe witness. It was hearsay both as to tbe amount and value of tbe goods taken and was no evidence, either as auxiliary or independent, of tbe amount or value of the goods taken, and tbe objections taken to tbe admission of tbe testimony…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Ejumett, C. J.
This was an action to recover the value of certain goods alleged to have been wrongfully taken and detained by the Defendant, together with damages. The value was alleged at $2568, and the damages *219at $1000. The Defendant justified the taking, tinder an execution in his hands, as a Sheriff of the County, against the property of Peckham Brothers, who, he avers, were the owners of the property, at the time it was taken. He denies any damage and alleges that the property was not worth more than the sum of $1,500. He also avers that the sale from Peckham Brothers to the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Newell v. HoultonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Dodge v. ChandlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1868
- May v. GrawertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Brown v. FitcherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- State v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902