Rosellen v. Herzog

—This action was brought. to recover the value of certain property, consisting of jewelry, of the value of $163.93, which the plaintiff claimed had been wrongfully taken into possession by the defendants and converted by them. The answer denied the ownership of the property, and as affirmative defense averred that prior to, and at the time of the commencement of this action, there was pending undetermined in this court another action wherein the plaintiff and his assignors were defendants, and these defendants were plaintiffs, for the recovery of this and other property.

Upon the trial it was shown that the defendants had taken the goods,- and justified the taking upon the ground that the sale of the goods by them to the plaintiffs’ assignors was void, and that it had been induced by their false statements of their solvency.

The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment thereupon entered, and from the order denying a motion for a new trial, this appeal is taken.

The appellant claims that _error was committed during the progress of the trial in the admission of evidence of payments for other property not affected by this action, in reading from the books of the plaintiff’s assignors, and the declarations of the defendants as to their intentions in respect to the goods taken, which do not seem to be very material to the question in controversy, or to have in any way affected the defendants to their detriment

But it does appear that evidence was given by one of the Viemeisters, although objection was duly made, to the effect that if their creditors would have waited, or extended the time of payment, they could have paid their, creditors in full. This was clearly error. It was entirely immaterial what would have happened had the creditors of the Viemeisters chosen to extend the time of payment of their indebtedness.

Another material error seems to have been committed in the exclusion of the evidence of the agent of the Jewelers’ Board of Trade, who was obtaining information in respect to the Viemeisters’ standing, denying the statement which- had been sworn to by one of the Viemeisters, that he stated at the time of obtaining

So also, the defendants were entitled to show that the alleged change in the paper which had been filled out by the agent of the organization had not been made as was claimed by the Viemeisters; and also to show “where the paper had been, and in whose custody it was, for the purpose of contradicting the evidence which had been gffered upon the part of the plaintiff. °

Without considering the other points raised, we think that the errors suggested call for a reversal of the judgment'

The judgment and order should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

—I concur upon the ground' that it was error to exclude the evidence of the agent of the Jewelers’ Board of Trade in denial of what had been sworn to by one of the Viemeisters.

—The defendants, with regard to the sale and delivery of goods between November 24 and December 9th, 1890, to plaintiff’s assignors, alleged that the same were delivered because they relied upon the truth of statements which were false and fraudulent. Some of the goods taken by them were delivered prior to November 24th, 1890, and had either been paid for or delivered upon a credit not induced by fraudulent representations. These the defendants took wrongfully, and for their value a verdict should have been directed for plaintiffs. I dissent, moreover, from so much of the opinion as intimates that it was error to'show the prior dealings between the parties. Such evidence, it seems to me, is competent and relevant upon the question as to whether or not defendants relied solely on the representations made to the Jewelers’ Board of Trade, and communicated to them. The extent of prior credits and the course of5 dealing between the parties bears directly on this point Upon the other grounds assigned as error by the presiding judge, I concur in the result.