TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Underwood v. Atlantic Elevator Co.

Fred Underwood v. Atlantic Elevator Company

Underwood v. Atl. Elevator Co., 69 N.W. 185 (N.D. 1896)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
North Dakota Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 21, 1896
Judges
Corliss
Citations
69 N.W. 1856 N.D. 2741896 N.D. LEXIS 16
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Conversion — Evidence. Evidence held to be sufficient to justify the verdict. Harmless Error. Error without prejudice is not ground for reversal.
Summary
Appeal from District Court, Ransom County; Lauder, J. Action by Fred Underwood and Emma A. Powell, co-partners, as Fred Underwood & Co., against the Atlantic Elevator Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Corliss

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Corliss, J.

Plaintiffs are chattel mortgagees of a crop of wheat. As such mortgagees, they have sued the defendant for the conversion of the wheat covered by their mortgage. The ownership of the wheat by the mortgagor is not in dispute. Nor can we discover any issue as to the execution of the mortgage. This fact is admitted by the answer, when construed as a whole. Therefore we are not called upon to settle the very interesting question of evidence discussed by appellant’s counsel relating to *275 the proof of instruments without calling a subscribing witness who is living within the jurisdiction of the court. There is sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that the amount of wheat covered by the mortgage was 800 bushels, and that all of this grain was- drawn to defendant’s elevator, and by it sold and shipped out of the state. In addition to this, a demand was proved. There was therefore ample evidence of conversion. While it is possible that incompetent evidence relating to the value of the wheat was received, yet the error, if any, was without prejudice, for the reason that the verdict was for only $142.08; and it is too clear for discussion that the competent evidence in the case would compel a finding by the jury that the grain was worth at least 20 cents a bushel. As defendant was proven to have converted 800 bushels of wheat on which plaintiff had a mortgage lien, and as the amount of the verdict could be sustained even on the theory that the wheat was worth not to exceed 20 cents a bushel, we cannot discover how the defendant has suffered any prejudice from the admission of the incompetent evidence relating to value.

( 69 N. W. Rep. 185 .)

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

All concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1900: 11955: 12002: 119002026peak 1900 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wachter Investments2002 ND 65, 643 N.W.2d 29
  2. Killmer v. Duchscherer72 N.W.2d 650 (N.D. 1955)
  3. Bidgood v. Monarch Elevator Co.84 N.W. 561 (N.D. 1900)

Most recent

  1. Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wachter Investments2002 ND 65, 643 N.W.2d 29
  2. Killmer v. Duchscherer72 N.W.2d 650 (N.D. 1955)
  3. Bidgood v. Monarch Elevator Co.84 N.W. 561 (N.D. 1900)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Kuhnert v. Conrad, 69 N.W. 185 (N.D. 1896) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list