Marshall-Wells Hardware Co. v. Emde
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Swift county to recover $1,498 for certain, goods, wares and merchandise. The answer was a general denial. The ease was-tried before Qvale, J., who directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the amount demanded. From an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, he appealed.
1Per curiam
This is an action to recover the purchase price for goods sold and delivered to the Farmers’ Lumber & Supply Company, a copartnership composed of the defendant and one Small. After the delivery of the goods, the copartnership was dissolved by mutual agreement, and the defendant took over the business of the firm, and, as a part of the transaction, assumed and agreed to pay the liabilities of the firm, including the claim in suit. These facts were not controverted on the trial. The defendant himself testified that he executed the written agreement whereby he assumed the liabilities of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Morrill v. Little Falls Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- State ex rel. County Treasurer of Mille Lacs County v. DikeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Livingston v. IvesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Christianson v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- MacFee v. HoranSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Burlington Grocery Co. v. LinesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1923