Minnesota Supreme Court, 1976

Custom Farm Services, Inc. v. Collins

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 9, 1976 · Per Curiam

238 N.W.2d 608; 306 Minn. 571; 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1491 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Leo D. Collins and James L. Collins, pro se, for appellants., Krofchalk & Boraas and Gary F. Krofchalk, 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 2025, 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

32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

In the Matter of the Appointment of a Trustee for the Next of Kin of: Nadir Imbrahim Ombabi, Decedent. (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
State of Minnesota v. Ayesha Lynn Khan (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
State v. Taylor (Minn. 2002)
Hunt v. Regents of the University of Minnesota (Minn. 1990)
In re Commitment of Johnson (Minn. Ct. App. 2019)
Bobbie Teeple v. Estate of Dylan Cox (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
In re the marriage of: Lori Ann Saari v. Mark Steven Saari (Minn. Ct. App. 2025)
Deborah Meckola, as Trustee for the Heirs of Jordan Adams, Decedent v. Thomas J. Rishavy, M.D. (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
State of Minnesota v. Ali John Moin (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
Sheikh Bilaal Muhammad Arafat f/k/a Mark Edward Wetsch v. Barlin Mohamed Ahmed (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
State of Minnesota v. David Lamar Everett, and David Lamar Everett v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
Marriage of Hesse v. Hesse (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
In re Peer Review Action (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)
Bunge v. Zachman (Minn. Ct. App. 1998)
Menahga Education Ass'n v. Menahga Independent School District No. 821 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997)
Oelschlager v. Magnuson (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)
Hoagland v. State (Minn. 1994)
Contested Case of Surf & Sand Nursing Home v. Department of Human Services (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)
Anderson v. Pearson (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
Marriage of Mitterhauser v. Mitterhauser (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
Marriage of Gunderson v. Gunderson (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
Brown v. First Growth, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
Frederick v. Burke (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
Fritz v. Fritz (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
Eichinger v. Wicker Enterprises, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)

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

Per Curiam.

Defendants appealed pro se from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict. Defendants have not supplied an appendix as required by Rule 130.01, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, nor have they reproduced the transcript of the district court proceeding, aside from the text of the court’s charge to the jury, as required by Rule 110.02, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.

Defendants allege several errors which they argue entitled them to *572 a new trial. Because of the absence of a transcript of the district court proceedings, we cannot consider two of these — sufficiency of the evidence, and misconduct of plaintiff’s counsel. An appellant has the burden of providing an adequate record for appeal. Error cannot be pre sumed. Noltimier v. Noltimier, 280 Minn. 28, 157 N. W. 2d 530 (1968).

Defendants argue that the district court erred in not instructing on a no-bill count. Defendants were represented at trial by counsel. No written instructions were requested and at the close of the trial court’s charge, no requests for additions or objections were made by defendants’ counsel. There being no fundamental error, there is no basis for consideration of the allegation of error in the court’s charge. Rule 51, Rules of Civil Procedure; Wadena v. Bush, 305 Minn. 134, 232 N. W. 2d 753 (1975).

Defendants allege two instances of juror misconduct. First, they allege that four of the jurors were acquainted with them but stated that they were not during voir dire. Second, they allege that misconduct occurred during deliberation. Although it may be reversible error for a juror not to disclose acquaintanceships with one of the parties, Carl Lindquist & Carlson, Inc. v. Johanson, 182 Minn. 529, 235 N. W. 267 (1931), a party will not be allowed to remain silent on discovery of such misconduct and gamble on a favorable verdict. Under such circumstances, the party is deemed to have waived his objection. 14 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 7107 and cases cited therein. In any event, defendants were represented by counsel during trial. Had they communicated their knowledge of the juror’s allegedly untruthful answers during voir dire, the proper procedure for investigating such claims could have been pursued. See, Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. 258 Minn. 325, 104 N. W. 2d 301 (1960).

Defendants’ other challenge goes to conduct of the jury during deliberation. This state follows the rule that improper conduct which occurs during deliberation cannot be shown by testimony of the jurors themselves. Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 274 Minn. 482, 144 N. W. 2d 540 (1966); Hurlburt v. Leachman, 126 Minn. 180, 148 N. W. 51 (1914); 14A Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 7109.

Affirmed.

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