E. L. Welch Co. v. Lahart Elevator Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
After tbe former appeal reported in 109 Minn. 219, 123 N. W. 821, tbe case was tried before Steele, J., wbo made findings and or•dered judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff’s motion to amend fbe findings of fact was denied. Prom an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, it appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHallam, J.
Tbis is an action in conversion to recover tbe valne of 5,334 bnsbels ■of wheat. Tbe case bas been tried twice. On tbe first trial, before a jury, tbe court directed a verdict in favor of defendant, on tbe ground that tbe evidence conclusively showed that defendant was tbe -owner of tbe wheat. On appeal tbis order was reversed on tbe ground *434that the question of ownership was one of fact to be determined by the jury. 109 Minn. 219, 123 N. W. 821. The second trial was before the court without a jury. The court found as a fact that defendant was the owner of the wheat. From an order denying a…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Fishback v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Rail v. Little Falls Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Welch v. SpiesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Burrows v. . WhitakerNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Morrow v. ReedWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Canyon State Canners, Inc. v. HooksArizona Supreme Court · 1952
- Watson v. GoldsteinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Holmes v. SchnedlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Stein v. ShapiroSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Dalrymple v. Randall, Gee & Mitchell Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.