O'Neil v. St. Olaf's School
Supreme Court of Minnesota
In each of these actions, the defendant St. Olaf’s School -(which was impleaded with one Charles P. Anderson) separately demurred to the complaint. In the first case the •demurrer was sustained, and, in the second, overruled. In the first ease the plaintiff, and in the second the defendant, -appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Gileillan, G. J.
These actions are to enforce liens ■claimed by the respective plaintiffs against real estate of the ■corporation defendant.
■ In the first the complaint alleges said defendant’s ownership of the land; that in May, 1877, it made a contract with *330the defendant Anderson, by which he agreed to construct,, during the years 1877 and 1878, a building on the land; that afterwards plaintiff contracted with Anderson to do a part of' the work on the building, and furnish part of the materials, therefor; that he accordingly did such work and furnished such materials, between May 30, 1877,…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Meyer v. BerlandiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Jones v. Great Southern Fireproof Hotel Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
- Laird v. MoonanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Randolph v. Builders & Painters Supply Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Hill v. GillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.