Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Goodnow
Supreme Court of Minnesota
. Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county, to recover for the sawing of logs for defendant. In his answer’ the defendant pleaded a counterclaim for damages for breach by plaintiff of the contract stated in the opinion. At the trial before Rea, J.,. a verdict was directed for plaintiff. The defendant appeals from the-judgment.
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
This case is claimed by respondent to be analogous to the cases of Bailey v. Austrian, 19 Minn. 465, (535,) and Tarbox v. Gotzian, 20 Minn. 122, (139;) and probably the court below, *498in deciding the case, took the same view of it. In those cases, as in this, there was no consideration to sustain the contracts unless there were mutual promises, and in each of those cases the court held that there were not mutual promises; that, while one party promised and undertook to do something, the other did not promise nor undertake to do anything. In the Bailey case the defendant promised to supply…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Furnell v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1873
3Cited by28 opinions
- Indianapolis Northern Traction Co. v. BrennanIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- Ben C. Jones & Co. v. Gammel-Statesman Publishing Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1907
- Hoffman v. MaffioliWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Jordan v. Indianapolis Water Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1902
- Sweeney v. Jackson CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1919
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.