Magoon v. Minnesota Transfer Packing Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county, to recover the amount alleged to be due upon a contract for a year’s employment.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county, to recover the amount alleged to be due upon a contract for a year’s employment. The Exhibit A referred to in the opinion, being the contract upon which the action is founded, is as follows, viz.: “We, the Minnesota Rendering Company” (the name then borne by defendant) “of Minneapolis, Minnesota, county of Hennepin, and state of Minnesota, of the first part, in consideration of certain services to be performed as salesman by H. L. Magoon, party of the second, do agree to pay H. L. Magoon, for his services for one year…
1Opinion of the CourtBeRey, J.
This is a case of great conflict of testimony. The plaintiff and his witnesses swear to a state of facts going to establish his right of recovery, while the defendants swear to a contrary state of facts as respects most of the material points in the case. In such circumstances it is not for us to disturb the verdict if there is competent evidence having a reasonable tendency to sustain it. There is, in our opinion, evidence of that character, reasonably tending to show — First, that Upham was authorized, in behalf of defendant, to make the contract for plaintiff’s services evidenced by…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Landigan v. MayerOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- Griffin v. BristleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Welsh v. Barnes-Duluth Shipbuilding Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- Ramsay Realty Co. v. RamsaySupreme Court of Iowa · 1907