Legal Opinion
McDonald Bros. v. Koltes
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 16, 1923No. 23,281PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Lees, C.
Action on four promissory notes which defendants had given to plaintiff. The defense was want of consideration. At the close of defendants’ case, plaintiff moved for a directed verdict. The motion was granted and defendants have appealed from an order denying their motion in the alternative for judgment or a new trial. (
The Tintah Farmers Co-operative Mercantile Company was a corporation conducting a general store at Tintah in this state. Defendants Keaveny, Swedlund and Koltes were respectively president, vice-president, and secretary and treasurer! of the corporation. On March 24,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Strong v. . SheffieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Manter v. ChurchillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Turle v. SargentSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Edgerton v. WeaverIllinois Supreme Court · 1882
- Combination Steel & Iron Co. v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Baehr v. Penn-O-Tex Oil Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Lennen & Newell, Inc. v. Clark Enterprises, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1969
- Baker v. Citizens State Bank of St. Louis ParkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Markville State Bank v. SteinbringSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Fluckey v. AndersonNebraska Supreme Court · 1937
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.