Wright v. Jewell
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Olay county, upon a promissory note for a first cause of action, and to recover the agreed price of services rendered in superintending defendant’s farms as a second cause of action.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Olay county, upon a promissory note for a first cause of action, and to recover the agreed price of services rendered in superintending defendant’s farms as a second cause of action. The second paragraph of defendant’s amended answer, referred to in the opinion, admitted that plaintiff was employed by defendant, alleged that plaintiff was idle half of the time and neglected his duties, and that his services were of no value whatever to the defendant. The counterclaim set up in the answer is for damages occasioned by plaintiff’s…
1Opinion of the CourtBeeRy, J.
The second paragraph of defendant’s amended answer sets up a defence, partial at least, to the second cause of action alleged in the complaint. The third paragraph of the amended answer sets up a counterclaim. Upon the hearing of the motion to strike out the ■entire answer as sham, affidavits of third persons, in addition to his ■own, were read by plaintiff, fairly tending to show that both of the *506paragraphs mentioned were false; and counter-affidavits of third persons, in addition to her own, were read by defendant, fairly tending to show that both paragraphs were true. The court below…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- O'Ferrall v. ColbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1858
- Barker v. FosterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
3Cited by3 opinions
- First National Bank v. LangSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. BargabosSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Pfaender v. Winona & St. Peter RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901