Palm Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Bjornstad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The facts found by the trial court are stated in the opinion. The case was tried before Dickson, J., who made findings and ordered a foreclosure of the lien by sale of the premises described in the complaint. From an order denying their motion for a new trial, defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, C. J.
The facts in this ease as found by the trial court are substantially as follows:
Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Michigan, and its general place of business at Detroit in that state. The corporation has never complied with the laws of this state (G. S. 1913, §§ 6206, 6207), and was not at the time here in question entitled to transact business, nor had it at any time kept or maintained an office or place of business therein. Plaintiff’s business is that of a manufacturer of vacuum cleaners; machines operated by electricity and designed for…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- American Amusement Co v. East Lake Chutes Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Milan Milling, etc., Co. v. GortenTennessee Supreme Court · 1894
- George M. Muller Manufacturing Co. v. First National BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Rosemond v. GrahamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Campbell v. Motion Picture Machine Operators' UnionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Peck-Williamson Heating & Ventilating Co. v. McKnight & MerzTennessee Supreme Court · 1918
- United States Construction Co. v. Hamilton National BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1920
- Lummus Cotton Gin Co. v. ArnoldTennessee Supreme Court · 1924
- Kraft v. HoppeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.