Minnesota Supreme Court, 1887

Tunell v. Larson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 25, 1887 · Gilpillan

37 Minn. 258; 34 N.W. 29; 1887 Minn. LEXIS 99 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Lovely, Morgan é Morgan, for appellant., Whytock é Todd, 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 1902, 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

1 later published case cites this decision.

Yoki v. First State Bank of Detroit (Minn. 1902)

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

Gilpillan, G. J.1

The court erred in excluding the question put to the witness Finley, designed to call out a conversation between him and Frederick Tunell, in which the latter stated that he had assigned *259'the property to the plaintiff in order to prevent his creditors from .getting hold of it. Frederick had been examined as a witness for plaintiff, and the whole course and tenor of his direct examination .and testimony was directed to showing that the transfer was made in good faith, in the payment of an honest debt, and with no intent to ■defraud creditors. Upon this it was competent for the defendant to impeach that testimony by proving declarations of the witness to the •effect that the transfer was made for a fraudulent purpose; the witness’ attention, of course, being first called to the occasion on which the alleged declarations were made, so that he might have an opportunity to explain them. The attention of the witness Frederick was •distinctly called to the alleged conversation, and he denied the declarations. The witness Finley ought to have been allowed to testify to them. As there should be a new trial for this reason, it is unnecessary to pass on the other assignments of error, though we will say that declarations as to the transfer of the exempt property, that ■transfer having been in no way connected with the one in controversy, were inadmissible.

Order reversed.

Berry, J., because of illness, took no part in this case.

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