Johnson v. Avery
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 1914, 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.
- Seewald v. Schmidt (Minn. 1914)
- Brace v. Doble (S.D. 1892)
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
After a careful examination of the record in this case we are unable to discover wherein the trial court erred in a single particular. But two of the errors assigned need special comment.
1. Conceding that there w,as a variance between one of the allegations of the complaint and the proof thereon, the defendant failed to make an objection to the testimony, and neglected to call attention to the variance until he presented his motion for a new trial. It was then too late.
2. The defendant failed to establish the counterclaim for alleged conversion, even if we consider the testimony of the grain-dealer, which was stricken out. It must not be assumed because defendant purchased a quantity of oats in Minneapolis, caused them to be shipped to a railway station near his farm in a distant part of the state, consigned to a person whose name has not been disclosed, that they went into plaintiff’s possession. He admits, however, that he received several hundred sacks of the grain, and accounts for the same by showing that the greater part was used for seeding the- farm, and the balance in feeding defendant’s horses. This disposition was expressly authorized by defendant, and if, as a; matter of fact, the latter sold the horses on the day plaintiff’s contract as farm foreman terminated, it was not shown upon the trial.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.