161 N.W. 558 | N.D. | 1917
Lead Opinion
In his complaint plaintiff avers that he was the owner, and entitled to the immediate possession, of certain grain; that defendant unlawfully converted the same to its own use, to plaintiff’s damage in the sum of $1,631.84. The answer denies all the allegations of the complaint.
The evidence shows that the plaintiff was the owner of certain lands in Traill county. In February, 1914, he entered into a contract with one Halland for the cropping of these premises during the years 1914, 1915, and 1916. The cropping contract, which was in writing, contained provisions to the effect that Halland agreed “not to sell or remove, or suffer to be sold or removed, any of the produce of said farm” without the written consent of Stavens, until a division of such produce had been made; and that, until such division, the title to such produce remained in Stavens. The contract further provided-that,'upon Ilalland’s compliance with the terms thereof, the produce should be ec|ual]y divided
A jury was waived. The cause was tried to a court and resulted in findings and conclusions in favor of the defendant. Judgment was entered in accordance with such findings and conclusions, and the plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
The court found, among other things, that the defendant purchased the grain in ordinary course of business, without notice or knowledge of plaintiff’s claim thereto; that plaintiff made no demand for the return of the grain prior to the commencement of the action, and that plaintiff failed to prove that Halland did not have the full equitable title to the grain at the time of its purchase, with the mere naked legal title retained by Stavens under the written contract. We are all agreed that these findings have substantial support in the evidence and are binding on this court. State Bank v. Maier, 34 N. D. 259, 158 N. W. 346.
The testimony of Halland tends to show that he fully performed his part of the contract, and that the contract was terminated by mutual consent in the fall of 1914; that most of the moneys derived from the sale of his share of the crops were utilized by him in paying threshing and labor bills incurred in the production of the grain. Halland’s testimony also tends to show an implied consent on the part of the plaintiff to such sale. There is no evidence on the part of the plaintiff showing any specific interest on his part in the grain in controversy. So far as the evidence shows, Halland was the equitable owner of the grain. He sold all his interest therein to the defendant.
It is true, this court has recognized and enforced stipulations reserv
In this ease Halland, the equitable owner of the grain, has sold the same to the defendant. He is not complaining, nor could he complain, of the transaction. Obviously, the plaintiff in this case could not be injured to any greater extent than the amount of his interest in the grain converted. So far as the evidence in this case is concerned, there is nothing to show that he had any interest except the mere naked legal title remaining in the plaintiff. Consequently, plaintiff has failed to show that he has suffered any damages. The most that he could be awarded under the evidence in this case would be nominal damages.
We are also satisfied that under the evidence in this case the court would have been justified in finding that the plaintiff waived his right to assert any claim against the grain in controversy. -
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Rehearing
On Petition for Rehearing.
The record fails to show that the plaintiff proved a cause of action. It shows an attempt on the part of the plaintiff to get pay for grain which did not belong to him. The fact that the court gave a wrong reason for the decision did not prevent the plaintiff from proving a cause of action. The motion for rehearing presents nothing new. It is denied.
