Steenerson v. Waterbury
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff, Halvor Steenerson, from an order of the District Court of Polk County, Baxter, J., made August 13, 1892, granting a new trial. The defendants, James M. Waterbury and Chauncey Marshall, were partners in business at No. 33 Front street, New York, manufacturing binding twine. S. C. Bennett of Minneapolis was their traveling agent in this state in 1888 and 1889, and sold to Fred Buse of Bed Lake Falls, twine to the value of $6,05é.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff, Halvor Steenerson, from an order of the District Court of Polk County, Baxter, J., made August 13, 1892, granting a new trial. The defendants, James M. Waterbury and Chauncey Marshall, were partners in business at No. 33 Front street, New York, manufacturing binding twine. S. C. Bennett of Minneapolis was their traveling agent in this state in 1888 and 1889, and sold to Fred Buse of Bed Lake Falls, twine to the value of $6,05é. Base failed in business, and made conveyances of his property which his creditors claimed were fraudulent. Bennett, by direction of defendants,…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
On the trial of this action, which was brought to recover for professional services alleged to have been rendered by plaintiff, as an attorney at law, at defendant’s request, the principal question for the jury was as to the power or authority of defendants’ agent to employ the plaintiff. There was a verdict in his favor, and a new trial was granted, on the ground, as appears from a memorandum attached to the order appealed from, that the testimony which was produced to establish the power or authority of the agent to employ the plaintiff was insufficient to charge the defendants with his…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McAlpine v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Fitch v. MartinNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
- Rees v. StormsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Gates v. AveryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901