Minnesota Supreme Court, 1893

Hart v. Kessler

Hart v. Kessler
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 27, 1893 · Gilfillan
53 Minn. 546; 55 N.W. 742; 1893 Minn. LEXIS 385 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

McLaughlin & Morrison, for appellants., Williams é Schoonmaker, 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 1893, 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

Hart v. Kessler

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

The action being for conversion, the plaintiffs could not recover unless they proved their right of property in the chattels alleged to have been converted. The evidence introduced by them did not tend to prove this. They having sold the chattels (5,000 cigars, worth $300) to Curry, the most that could be claimed for the evidence was that he orally agreed to retransfer them to plaintiffs, and they agreed to take them in payment of their account against him. Nothing was done that could be construed to be a delivery or a payment for them, and nothing said indicating that the parties understood it to be a completed retransfer of the property, or anything but an executory agreement to retransfer.

The fact that Curry excepted the cigars from his bill of sale to defendant had no tendency to prove a sale in pracsenti to plaintiffs. *549It was not abuse of discretion to refuse, the day after the proofs were closed, to reopen the case for plaintiffs to make further proofs.

Order affirmed.

(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 743.)

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