Allen v. Fortier
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Yellow Medicine county, to recover for the alleged conversion of wheat-. The answer denied plaintiff’s ownership and set out that the defendant, as. sheriff, had levied upon and sold the wheat under an execution against: one James Allen.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Yellow Medicine county, to recover for the alleged conversion of wheat-. The answer denied plaintiff’s ownership and set out that the defendant, as. sheriff, had levied upon and sold the wheat under an execution against: one James Allen. The action was tried by a referee, and upon the trial, the defendant, on cross-examination, asked the plaintiff who owned the grain at the time it was threshed, and also whether, from all the circumstances, he did not think that the wheat was James Allen’s wheat. Upon plaintiff’s objection these…
1Opinion of the Court
Vandebbuegh, J.1
The principal question in the case is in respect to the validity of the title of the plaintiff to the grain in controversy, which was levied on and sold by the defendant sheriff as the property of James Allen, the plaintiff’s brother, who was the judgment debtor. The grain was raised on the farm of the latter, which had been by him previously leased to the plaintiff. The defence is rested chiefly upon the claim that the lease was merely colorable, and that the plaintiff took the lease and assumed to manage the farm for the benefit of the judgment debtor, and in order to aid…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Nicolay v. MallerySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895