Flatner v. Good
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 1932, 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hoiby v. Federal Motor Truck Sales Corp. (Minn. 1932)
- Talbot v. Magee (Mo. Ct. App. 1894)
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
Notwithstanding a conflict of testimony, there is sufficient evidence in this case having a reasonable tendency to show that plaintiff was owner of the property in controversy, and entitled to its possession. There is also like evidence that, at the time of its seizure in the present action of claim and delivery, the property was in the actual physical possession of the defendant. It was in a building belonging to him, and of which, as the evidence tends to show, he kept the key, and had control. The fact that, in these circumstances, he was keeping the property for another person, does not, in an action of this kind, alter the fact that he was in actual physical possession of it, and therefore a proper defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.