64 Neb. 380 | Neb. | 1902
In this case the first complaint is of error in not sustaining a motion for judgment in favor of defendants on the
It is claimed that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $10. The evidence is somewhat conflicting as to plaintiff’s assent to the taking and appropriation of the power, but the preponderance seems clearly in favor of the jury’s view that there was no settlement, nor agreement to divide the property, and that the power was taken by defendant Pecha and sold without the assent of his co-owner.
The court having defined “conversion” as a wrongful taking, and having stated what circumstances would and would not make the admitted action of defendant in selling the property wrongful, it was not error to tell the jury, by the ninth instruction, that, if they found that defendant Pecha had converted the property and sold it to his codefendant, both were liable.
It is recommended that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.
By the Court: For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.