Legal Opinion

Henry v. Hinman

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 27, 1875PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Scott county, Ghatfield, J. presiding, granting a new trial.

1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.

In this case, after a verdict, a new trial was granted by the court below, on two grounds: First. That the court should have excluded a note offered by plaintiff, because of a variance between the note described in the complaint, and the one offered on the trial. As to the note, the defendant, in his answer, “ denies that he ever, at any time or place, made, executed and delivered the promissory note mentioned and described in said plaintiff’s complaint, and says that the said promissory note, so mentioned and described in said complaint, was obtained from this defendant by one William…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Henry v. HinmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
  2. Chesley v. Mississippi & Rum River Room Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
  3. Boright v. Springfield Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
  4. Mead v. BillingsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
  5. Gaffney v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1888

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API