Case Name: DORA LINDE v. AUGUST GAFFKE
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1900-11-12
Citations: 81 Minn. 304
Docket Number: Nos. 12,258—(60)
Parties: DORA LINDE v. AUGUST GAFFKE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 81
Pages: 304–305

Head Matter:
DORA LINDE v. AUGUST GAFFKE.
November 12,1900.
Nos. 12,258—(60).
Wheat — Value—Farmer May Testify.
A farmer engaged in raising and marketing wheat is presumed to know the value thereof, and may testify thereto without showing familiarity with the market.
Conversion of Wheat — Evidence.
Evidence examined, and held to sustain the verdict as to the ownership of certain wheat alleged to have been converted by defendant.
Action in the district court for Sibley county to recover $219.90 damages for conversion. The case was tried before Cad well, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
Ed. U. Euébner, for appellant.
W. JI. Leeman, for respondent.
Reported in 84 N. W. 41.

Opinion:
BROWN, 1.
Action to recover for the conversion of a quantity of wheat, which plaintiff alleges was her property. Defendant took and converted the wheat, as sheriff, under an execution against the plaintiff's husband. Plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant appeals from an order denying a new trial.
We find nothing in any of the assignments of error to require extended notice. There was ho error in refusing to strike out the testimony of witness Papke. He was a farmer, and presumed to know the value of the wheat (McLennan v. Minneapolis & N. E. Co., 57 Minn. 317, 59 N. W. 628); and, besides, the defendant himself corroborated the witness on that subject. It was of no importance whether plaintiff owned the land on which the wheat was raised. She testified that she raised the same, and that it was her property. This sustains the verdict, and, if error to admit the documentary evidence complained of, it was error without prejudice. Counsel does not seriously contend that there was any misconduct on the part of the jury. Certainly none is shown by the affidavits.
Order affirmed.