Minnesota Supreme Court, 1886

Scofield v. Walrath

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 7, 1886 · Gileillan

35 Minn. 356; 28 N.W. 926; 1886 Minn. LEXIS 146 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Hollins & Miner and C. H. Wilson, for appellant., Charles G. Van Wert and A. N. Merrick, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1931, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Tierney v. Graves Motor Co. (Minn. 1931)
Germain v. Great Northern Lumber Co. (Minn. 1919)
Nichols & Shepard Co. v. Wiedemann (Minn. 1898)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Gileillan, C. J.

As the settled case does not purport to contain all the evidence, it is impossible for us to say that the “newly-dis-discovered” evidence would, in connection with the other evidence, be likely to affect the result in a second trial, (Lampsen v. Brander, 28 Minn. 526; 11 N. W. Rep. 94,) or that it is not merely cumulative. We cannot say, therefore, that the trial court departed from a fair exercise of its judicial discretion upon application for new trials on the ground of such evidence.

As to the questions asked the witness Kinney, which are referred to in the first, second, and third assignments of error, they are liable to the objection that it does not appear from them that the answers would probably have been material; and, when objected to, no statement of what was expected to be proved by them, nor offer of evidence to make them material, was made. State v. Staley, 14 Minn, 75, (105;) Austin v. Robertson, 25 Minn. 431. Take the first of the questions to illustrate this: “State, if you know, what under*357standing there was between Mr. Walrath and Mr. Scofield at the time of making the note, or any time thereafter, in regard to the payment of the same. ” The note expressed an understanding, an agreement, as to that. Did the party expect to show a different one ? And, if so, how, and when arrived at, and on what consideration ? The court could not tell from the question, or any of the preceding evidence, that the answer could have any legitimate bearing on the case; and so with the other questions.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.