262 N.W. 209 | Minn. | 1935
Lead Opinion
1. The claimant contends that the court erred in admitting evidence of the value of the farm deeded to claimant and his wife at the time Peter received the $5,000 from Michael's wife. We see no error in this. The recital of the amount of the consideration in the deed was not contractual. It was a mere acknowledgment of *194 receipt, and it was competent for the respondent to show the excess value of the land over the money received, in support of his theory that the excess equalized or more than equalized Michael with his brothers in sharing his father's property and that there was no reason for a promise on the part of Peter that Michael should be compensated further.
2. The conversations in which Peter indicated his intention in regard to Michael were admissible as showing Peter's intent that the excess value was to be given to Michael in lieu of a provision similar to that made for the other children and that Michael's work was no more to be paid for than was theirs. His statements indicated clearly that what he might give or leave his children was all the compensation they were to receive for such services is they had or might render. Fender v. Foust,
The evidence of Michael's two brothers that they received no compensation for work done for their father was objected to as incompetent, not as immaterial.
3. Evidence that Michael gave his note for money subsequently borrowed was admissible as showing a condition of affairs inconsistent with a debt owing by his father to him.
4. It may be that the court in its supplemental charge over-emphasized respondent's theory of the case, but no assignment of error on this part of the charge was incorporated in the motion for new trial. On the hearing of that motion there was evidently some discussion of the instructions with reference to value, but the court's memorandum does not indicate that the matter now complained of was presented to it by consent.
There is grave doubt whether any verdict for the claimant could be sustained on the record. The claimant's case rests on the testimony of his wife, which scarcely supports his contention that the father agreed to give claimant $5,000 as compensation for services previously rendered.
The order appealed from is hereby affirmed. *195
Dissenting Opinion
I think the record sufficiently shows that the objectionable parts of the supplemental charge were before the trial court on the motion for a new trial and that there should be a new trial on that account.