Case ID: minn_66/html/0486-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CANTY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

AKE SWANSON v. ELLING G. MELLEN.
    
    December 23, 1896.
    Nos. 10,222 — (176).
    Action for Services — Expert Evidence.
    
      Eeld, it was not, under tbe circumstances, error to admit the expert evidence given as to the value of plaintiff’s services, which evidence is complained of merely because the expert witness did not hear all of the testimony of plaintiff as to the character of the services rendered.
    Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Egan, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a verdict in favor of plaintiff for ¡§604.41.
    Affirmed.
    
      
      Samuel A. Anderson, for appellant.
    
      James JS. Trash, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 69 N. W. 620.
    
   CANTY, J.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover the value of services rendered by him for defendant from April 1 to December 6, 1895, in assisting defendant in his business of dealing in and selling farm lands in this state. The only issue on the trial was the value of plaintiff’s services. Plaintiff had a verdict, and, from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.

The only question raised on this appeal is the ruling of the court permitting one Norton, a witness called by plaintiff, to testify as an expert to the value of plaintiff’s services. Norton testified that he heard a part, but not all, of the testimony of plaintiff as to the character of the services performed by plaintiff. The bill of exceptions contains a statement of the character of these services as testified to by plaintiff, and it appears from the evidence of Norton that the hind of services so performed were not exceptional or peculiar, but are a familiar type of services rendered in. that line of business, to wit, doing advertising, distributing circulars, looking up customers, taking them out in the country, and showing the lands for sale. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that it was error to admit the testimony complained of.

Order affirmed.