Lexplug logoLexplug

Hanson v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Minnesota
201 N.W. 322 (1924)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An out-of-court statement that accompanies a physical act and gives that act independent legal significance is not inadmissible hearsay but is rather a non-hearsay "verbal act" or legally operative fact.


Facts:

  • Plaintiff Hanson owned a farm and leased it to a tenant, Schrik, under a written lease.
  • The lease entitled Hanson to receive two-fifths of the corn grown on the farm as rent.
  • Schrik obtained a loan from a bank and gave the bank a mortgage on his share of the crops.
  • After harvesting the corn, Schrik separated it into different cribs.
  • Schrik then pointed to a single crib and a double crib of corn and stated to Hanson, "here is your corn for this year... this belongs to you, Mr. Hanson."
  • The bank, with Schrik's permission, held an auction for Schrik's mortgaged property.
  • At the auction, the bank sold the 393 bushels of corn from the single crib to defendant Johnson.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiff Hanson filed an action for conversion against defendant Johnson and a bank in the trial court.
  • The case was tried to the court without a jury.
  • The trial court admitted testimony regarding the tenant's statement to Hanson identifying the corn but excluded testimony about what the tenant later told bank officials.
  • The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Hanson.
  • The defendants appealed the judgment to the appellate court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a tenant's out-of-court statement to his landlord, which identifies a specific portion of a crop as the landlord's share, admissible as a non-hearsay "verbal act" to prove the landlord's ownership in a later dispute?


Opinions:

Majority - Wilson, C. J.

Yes. A tenant's statement identifying the landlord's share of a crop is admissible as it constitutes a non-hearsay 'verbal act.' The tenant's words were not offered to prove the truth of an assertion, but rather as the legally operative fact of the property division itself. The statement accompanied the physical act of separating the corn and was essential to give that act legal significance, thereby making the division definite. This act of division is a necessary fact in the chain of proving title. Therefore, the statement is original evidence of a legally significant transaction and is not inadmissible hearsay.



Analysis:

This case provides a clear illustration of the "verbal act" doctrine, a significant exception to the general rule against hearsay. The decision establishes that words are not hearsay if they have independent legal significance, meaning the words themselves create or alter legal rights and obligations. This precedent is crucial in property and contract law, as it allows proof of ownership or agreement through statements that constitute the transaction itself, rather than merely describing it. The ruling distinguishes such operative language from subsequent narrative statements, which would be considered hearsay.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Hanson v. Johnson (1924) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Hanson v. Johnson