Peterson v. Mille Lacs Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, The Mille Lacs Lumber Company, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Kelly, L, made March 26, 1892, refusing a new trial. The plaintiff, A. E. Peterson, was on April 27, 1891, a lumber dealer at St. Paul. The defendant was a corporation created and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and engaged in manufacturing and dealing in lumber, having its mills and yards at Milaca, Minn., and its head office at St. Paul.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, The Mille Lacs Lumber Company, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Kelly, L, made March 26, 1892, refusing a new trial. The plaintiff, A. E. Peterson, was on April 27, 1891, a lumber dealer at St. Paul. The defendant was a corporation created and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and engaged in manufacturing and dealing in lumber, having its mills and yards at Milaca, Minn., and its head office at St. Paul. On that day plaintiff received a proposition in writing signed by Mille Lacs Lumber Co. by Wm. E. Lee, manager, offering to sell to…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
The trial court committed no error when admitting in evidence the contract of sale signed by Mr. Lee, as manager of defendant corporation, and certainly there was no error in the charge to the jury as to his apparent authority as manager to bind defendant. His appointment in writing as general manager of the business, and that he was acting as such manager, were admitted, and his authority to sell the product of the mills could not well be questioned from his own testimony. Indeed, this authority to sell was not denied in the letter written by the president repudiating the contract, for his…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bailey v. Security Ins.Oregon Supreme Court · 1921
- Sinclair v. Investors SyndicateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Harmon v. Central Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927