## Facts

- Hanson (plaintiff) owned a farm and leased it to Schrik under a written crop-share lease giving Hanson two-fifths of the corn grown.
- Schrik (the tenant) gave the State Bank of Round Lake a chattel mortgage covering Schrik’s share of the crops.
- With Schrik’s permission, the bank sold the mortgaged property at a public auction.
- At the auction, a crib of corn containing about 393 bushels was sold and purchased by Johnson (defendant).
- Hanson claimed the crib sold at auction was part of Hanson’s two-fifths share under the lease and that the bank’s sale and Johnson’s purchase constituted conversion.
- To prove the identity of the corn as his share, Hanson testified that near the end of husking, Schrik pointed out specific cribs and said in substance: “Mr. Hanson, here is your corn for this year … this belongs to you, Mr. Hanson.”
- A bystander also testified that he heard the tenant make substantially the same statement identifying the cribs as Hanson’s share.
- Defendants objected that the tenant’s statement to Hanson was hearsay and self-serving.
- Defendants also sought to introduce other statements by Schrik made later to bank officials about who owned the corn; the trial court excluded those later statements.
- The case was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment was entered for Hanson for conversion damages (and interest).
- Defendants appealed, arguing primarily that the trial court erred in receiving Hanson’s evidence of the tenant’s identifying statement.

## Issues

1. Whether the tenant’s contemporaneous statement identifying certain cribs as Hanson’s share under the lease was inadmissible hearsay (or a self-serving declaration) or admissible as a verbal act accompanying the division and identification of the crop.
2. Whether the tenant’s later statements to bank officials about ownership were admissible against Hanson without proof that the tenant was authorized as Hanson’s agent to determine or declare ownership.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Hanson.
- The tenant’s on-farm statement identifying the specific cribs as Hanson’s share was admissible because it was part of the act of division and identification of the crop; it was “original evidence” rather than hearsay.
- The tenant’s later statements to bank officials about ownership were properly excluded because there was no showing that Hanson made the tenant his agent to determine ownership.
- The record contained evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that the corn sold belonged to Hanson and that defendants converted it.

## Legal Principles

- Statements that accompany conduct and complete a transaction by giving legal meaning to the parties’ acts—such as dividing and identifying property—may be admitted as verbal acts and are not treated as hearsay.
- When a party must prove which specific goods make up an admitted ownership interest, contemporaneous words of identification tied to the dividing act may be admitted as original evidence in the chain of proof of title and identity.
- A tenant’s later narrative declarations to third persons about who owns property are not admissible against the landlord absent proof that the tenant was authorized as the landlord’s agent to decide or speak on ownership.
- A sale and purchase of another’s identified property can support liability for conversion when the evidence supports the owner’s title and the specific identity of the goods taken.

## Conclusion

In *Hanson v. Johnson*, the court held that the tenant’s contemporaneous identification of particular cribs as the landlord’s two-fifths share was admissible as a non-hearsay verbal act necessary to prove division and identity of the crop, while the tenant’s later statements to bank officials were inadmissible without proof of agency; with that evidence, the judgment for conversion against the bank and the purchaser was affirmed.


Hanson v. Johnson, 201 N.W. 322 (1924)