Shipley v. Bolduc
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover from defendant $3,036.77 claimed by plaintiff to be the balance of his share of partnership profits arising from certain contracts for bridge construction performed by plaintiff and defendant. The case was tried without a jury, against plaintiff's objection, before Elliott, J., who found in favor of defendant. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtLovely, J.
This suit was tried to the court, and upon findings of fact judgment was directed for the defendant. There was a motion for new trial, which was overruled. Plaintiff moved to' set aside the order of the court and for a new trial, which was refused. From this order plaintiff appeals.
*415The numerous assignments of error involve the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of fact and the refusal of the trial court to submit the issues therein to a jury.
The complaint alleges that in the spring of 1901 plaintiff and defendant formed a copartnership under the firm name of Bolduc & Shipley…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bond v. WelcomeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Hanks v. BaberIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Holyoke v. MayoSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1862
- Bates v. A. E. Johnson Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
3Cited by8 opinions
- Morton Brick & Tile Co. v. SodergrenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Raymond Farmers Elevator Co. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
- Landgraf v. EllsworthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Swanson v. AlworthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.