Russell v. Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Henne-pin county, Hicks, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, the action having been' dismissed at the trial, on defendant’s motion, at the close of plaintiffs’ evidence.
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiffs agreed to furnish to the defendant, on its line of road, “a large quantity” of ties, and that defendant “agreed to accept and pay them 34 cts. each for all ties which they could get out and deliver” to the company. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs went on and delivered ties along the defendant’s road, of which 1,385 were duly inspected and paid for. They claim that 4,893 ties in all were delivered, and they seek to recover for the balance, which defendant has refused to accept and pay for. The answer admits the corporate existence of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. SanbornSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
3Cited by7 opinions
- Howland v. Iron Fireman Manufacturing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949
- Howland v. Iron Fireman Mfg. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949
- Williams-Hayward Shoe Co. v. BrooksWyoming Supreme Court · 1901
- Kaufer v. StumpfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Bundy v. VoelkerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.