Case ID: minn_43/html/0288-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gilfillan, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peter Schmidt vs. Eugene McCarthy.
    May 16, 1890.
    Several unimportant assignments of error disposed of.
    Plaintiff built an addition to a house of defendant’s daughter-in-law, Mrs. Timothy McCarthy, on her land, and brought this action in the district court for Stearns county, to recover $450, the value of his labor and material, on the ground that the contract therefor was made by defendant, by Mrs. Timothy McCarthy as his agent. The latter having testified that defendant agreed with her that he would have the addition built, and that he told her to go and see plaintiff and have the work done, and that she was to repay him when she was able, was asked the following questions by defendant, each of which was excluded, the defendant excepting: “Were you to give Mr. McCarthy your note or anything for this money?” “You had some money that was due Mr. McCarthy. Didn’t the defendant direct you to keep the money and pay it to Mr. Schmidt ?” Plaintiff had a verdict for the full amount claimed, and the defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
    
      Taylor, Calhoun & Rhodes, for appellant.
    
      Hubert Hansen, for respondent.
   Gilfillan, C. J.

There is no merit in either assignment of error. Even had defendant been technically entitled, as a part of his cross-examination of the witness Mrs. McCarthy, to ask the questions which the court below excluded, it is apparent that he could not have been prejudiced by their exclusion. They were so manifestly immaterial that no conceivable answers that the witness might have made could in any way have affected the result.

Order affirmed.