Austin v. Robertson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Chippewa and Lac qui Parle counties. Brown, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
There was sufficient evidence to justify the verdict.
The action being against defendant, for talcing, as sheriff, plaintiff’s wheat, in the possession of his agent, A. A. Austin, upon an execution against J. A. Austin, the defendant offered to prove “what J. A. Austin said to him, while he was taking the wheat, in the presence of A. A. Austin, as to the pos*432session and control of the wheat.” Upon objection by plaintiff, no ground being stated, this was excluded..When a party makes an offer of testimony, the offer must-be sufficiently full to enable the court to see that the testimony offered…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Conlan v. GraceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Follansbee v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Nichols & Shepard Co. v. WiedemannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Knatvold v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Buck v. BuckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.