conversion of some grain. Held, that there is no evidence to sustain the counterclaim and the judgment is affirmed.
Opinion filed Oct. 19, 1921. Rehearing denied Nov. 15th, 1921.
Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County; Coffey, J. Affirmed.
John A. Jorgenson, for appellant.
“Defendant cannot escape liability for a conversion on the ground that it resulted in no profit or benefit to him.” Plat v. Tuttle, 23 Conn. 233; McPheters v. Page, 83 Me. 234; 22 A. 101; 23 Am. St. Rep. 772; Flagg v. Mann, 9 Fed. Cas. N. 4; 843, 3 Sumn. 84; Bank v. Ransford, 55 Ind. App. 663; 104 N. E. 604.
Although pleadings in the pending case are sometimes formally offered admissions of the adversary, it is generally held that they may be referred to and commented upon by counsel without such offer. Abbott's Trial Brief, Civil Jury Trials, 299; Jones Com. on Evidence (Horwitz) § 272; Tisdale v. President, 116 N. Y. 416; 22 N. E. 700; Holmes v. Jones, supra; Lee v. Heath, 61 N. J. Law, 250, 39 A. 729; Levitt v. Cutler, 37 Wis. 46.
“A principal is liable for an act of conversion committed by his agent while proceeding within the scope of his authority.” Cox v. Reynolds, 7 Ind. 257; Garmers v. Wood, 143 Ia. 635; 118 N. W. 282; 120 N. W. 625; Ward v. Carson, 13 Nev. 44; Shotwell v. Few 7 Johns, (N. Y.) 302; Miller v. Reigne, 2 Hill (S. C.) 592.
John W. Carr, for respondent.
Robinson, J. In August, 1919, defendant Sorlein made to the bank a promissory note for $2,115 and interest, and a chattel mortgage on an undivided half interest in crops to be grown in 1920 on W. 1/4 and S. E. 4 of 28—142—66. This land he cultivated under a cropping contract with Peter Norlid. Sorlein sowed, harvested, and threshed the crops. This action is to recover on the promissory note and to foreclose the chattel mortgage. Norlid is made a party defendant under an averment that he claims some interest in the crops. Norlid appeared and answered, claiming a lien on Sorlien’s share of the crops because of money due from
