Case Name: John Sauter, Administrator, vs. William Dollman, Jr., and others
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1891-07-07
Citations: 46 Minn. 504
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Sauter, Administrator, vs. William Dollman, Jr., and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 504–505

Head Matter:
John Sauter, Administrator, vs. William Dollman, Jr., and others.
July 7, 1891.
Evidence held sufficient to sustain findings of fact.
Action brought in the district court for McLeod county, by plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of William Dollman, deceased, to cancel a deed of land, signed by the intestate and his wife, in which the defendant William Dollman, Jr., was named as grantee, on the ground that it was never delivered in the intestate’s lifetime, and also to cancel a deed of the same land from defendant William to defendant Siegfried Dollman. The action was tried by Edson, J., who ordered judgment for plaintiff, which was entered, and the defendants appealed.
W. F. Schoregge, for appellants.
J. V. V. Lewis, for respondent.

Opinion:
Gilfillan, C. J.
The court below having found (and the evidence fully sustains the finding) that the deed signed by William Dollman and wife was not, during the life of William Dollman, delivered to the grantee named in it, how, after his death, the grantee named in it got possession of it, by threats, fraud, or the voluntary act of the wife, is immaterial. It could not be made operative by her delivery after the death of William, the owner of the property. The finding that the conveyance by William Dollman, Jr., to Siegfried Dollmah was without consideration is sustained by the evidence. That no consideration was paid at the time of its execution was directly shown, and the testimony of Siegfried to the subsequent payment was, even as it appears of record, of so suspicious a character that we can well see how the court, having the witness before it, might discredit the testimony. There is nothing requiring notice in any of the other assignments of error.
Judgment affirmed..