Legal Opinion
Kent v. Chapel
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 9, 1897No. Nos. 10,313—(253)PublishedCited by 16 opinions
Appeal by defendant from an order of tbe district court for Bamsey county, Otis, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtBuck, J.
The trial court found as facts in this case that:
“(1) On November 18, 1893, in an action then pending in this court, wherein one Thomas C. Connors was plaintiff and Frank G-. Brady was defendant, brought to recover damages for an assault alleged to have been theretofore wrongfully and maliciously made by said Brady upon said Connors, a verdict was duly rendered and given in favor of said plaintiff, Connors, against said defendant, Brady, for $425, which verdict was thereafter, on the same day, for value, duly assigned and transferred to the plaintiff in this action, duly witnessed, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hunt v. ConradSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Cooper v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
3Cited by16 opinions
- Solari Industries, Inc. v. MaladySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1970
- Clay v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Parker v. ZanghiNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-On Drugs, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1959
- Universal Holding Co. v. North Bergen Tp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1959
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.