Coleman v. Pearce
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Mower county, Page, J., presiding, granting a new trial. The action was against B. A. O’Neill and L. E. Pearce, and the latter was alone served with process and defended the action. The case is stated in the opinion. The plaintiff having pleaded an actual conversion by defendants, cannot rely on the facts creating the alleged estoppel, which he has not pleaded.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Mower county, Page, J., presiding, granting a new trial. The action was against B. A. O’Neill and L. E. Pearce, and the latter was alone served with process and defended the action. The case is stated in the opinion. The plaintiff having pleaded an actual conversion by defendants, cannot rely on the facts creating the alleged estoppel, which he has not pleaded. Gill v. Rice, 13 Wis. 555; Wood v. Ostram, 29 Ind. 177; Ransom v. Stanberry, 22 Iowa, 334; Phillips v. Van Schaick, 37 Iowa, 229; Davis v. Davis, 26 Cal. 23; Etcheborne v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Cornell, J.*
The order granting a new trial is not accompanied with any statement or opinion of the court showing reasons therefor, and hence we are unadvised as to the particular ground upon which it was made — whether for insufficiency of evidence, or for errors in the rulings of the court upon the trial.
In answer to the first point made by the defendant in support of the order, it is sufficient to say that in Caldwell v. Augur, 4 Minn. 156, (217,) it was expressly decided that matter constituting an estoppel in pais need not be pleaded as such, to enable a party to take advantage of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Laverty v. . SnethenNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Continental National Bank v. National Bank of the CommonwealthNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Griswold v. . HavenNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Pence v. ArbuckleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- Manufacturers' & Traders' Bank v. HazardNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Northcraft v. Edward C. Michener Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Jellett v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Stevens v. LudlumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- McDonald v. BayhaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Two Rivers Manufacturing Co. v. DayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.