O'Brien v. Findeisen
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiffs, J. E. O’Brien et al., from an order of the district court, Polk county, Mills, J., made January 31, 1891, refusing a new trial. Replevin commenced in justice court, Polk county, by J. E. O’Brien et al., December 27,1889, against William Findeisen, to recover possession of 147 bushels of wheat; value, $75. Plaintiffs had judgment in the justice court.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiffs, J. E. O’Brien et al., from an order of the district court, Polk county, Mills, J., made January 31, 1891, refusing a new trial. Replevin commenced in justice court, Polk county, by J. E. O’Brien et al., December 27,1889, against William Findeisen, to recover possession of 147 bushels of wheat; value, $75. Plaintiffs had judgment in the justice court. Defendant appealed to the district court, where it was tried, July 18, 1890. After hearing the evidence, the judge directed a verdict for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Gileillan, 0. J.
Replevin for 147 bushels of wheat grown in the season of 1889 on the land of one Sharon; plaintiffs claiming it under a “seed-grain” note executed by Sharon, dated December 10, 1888, and defendant claiming under a chattel mortgage executed by Sharon, dated March 23, 1889. Of course, if the seed-grain note is valid, plaintiffs’ right to the possession is superior to that of defendant. There was evidence showing that in November, Í889, Sharon *214delivered the wheat to plaintiffs in satisfaction o,f their note; but, as that was subsequent to defendant’s mortgage, plaintiffs could…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Calkins v. CopleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Warder-Bushnell & Glessner Co. v. Minnesota & Dakota Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. v. ProctorSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909