Legal Opinion
Wells v. Floody
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided March 29, 1923No. 23,308PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
This is an action to recover for services rendered by the plaintiff at an agreed compensation. There were findings for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals from the order dénying his motion for a new7 trial.
*127The plaintiff claims tbat be performed services for tbe defendant under a contract by which he was to receive $300. The defendant denies such a contract. The court might have found for one or for the other. Its finding for the plaintiff is sustained.
The question for us is whether the contract, taking it to be as the plaintiff claims it, is void as against public policy. There was no…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Tool Co. v. NorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Hazelton v. SheckellsSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Wight v. RindshopfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- Moyer v. CantienySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Goodrich v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- American National Bank v. HellingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Rademacher v. BeckerColorado Court of Appeals · 2015
- O'NEIL v. DuxSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Quinn v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.