Douglas v. Leighton
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants, Nathaniel G. Leighton and others, partners, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Henry O. Hicks, J., made January 6, 1894, denying their motion for a new trial. Action to recover of Nathaniel G. Leighton and others, partners, a balance of $1,531.57 for saw-logs sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants, Nathaniel G. Leighton and others, partners, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Henry O. Hicks, J., made January 6, 1894, denying their motion for a new trial. Action to recover of Nathaniel G. Leighton and others, partners, a balance of $1,531.57 for saw-logs sold and delivered. On February 19, 1886, plaintiff contracted with defendants to cut and bank about 2,000,000 feet of white pine saw-logs during that winter on the Little Prairie River in Carlton County. They were to be there scaled by the Surveyor General of that lumber district. This scaling…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
The nature of this controversy will be seen upon an examination of the opinion rendered on a former appeal. 53 *83Minn. 176, (54 N. W. 1053.) At the second trial it was shown by one of plaintiff’s witnesses (his foreman) that, as the logs were unloaded at the bank or landing, one of the men kept an account of the number on a tally board, and that, after each day’s hauling was completed, the foreman copied the number appearing-on the board into a book. These numbers were footed up so that each month’s work appeared by itself, and at the close of the season, about April 1, 1886, the book was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McMahan v. LundinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Douglas v. LeightonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Eder v. ReillySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by1 opinion
- McMahan v. LundinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894