Legal Opinion

Pohl v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 21, 1930No. 27,714PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Taylor, C.

Verdict for plaintiffs. Defendant surety company moved for judgment non obstante or for a new trial. The motion for judgment was granted. Plaintiffs appealed. The controversy is solely between plaintiffs and the surety company, and that company will be intended by the term defendant when used hereinafter.

O. A. Johnson, doing business as O. A. Johnson Elevator Company, operated a public grain warehouse in the state of South Dakota under a license from that state. Defendant was the surety on his bond as such warehouseman. The condition of the bond was to the effect that Johnson would…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McFadden v. FollrathSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
  2. Commercial Investment Trust v. Lundgren-Wittensten Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  3. Manitoba Mortg. & Inv. Co. v. WeissSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Kennedy v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Gustafson v. Equitable Loan Assn.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
  2. Merchants Mutual Bonding Company v. Appalachian Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1977
  3. United States v. JohnstonDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1955
  4. Guckeen Farmers Elevator Co. v. Cargill, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1964

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API