Legal Opinion

M. J. O'neil, Inc. v. Conner

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 16, 1931No. Nos. 28,576, 28,577PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilson, C. J.

The appeals are from orders denying motions for new trials.

There were tivo actions between the same parties. They were tried together, but separate findings were filed. Each action is to recover for plumbing and heating materials. Defendant Conner contracted with the board of education in Minneapolis to furnish and install plumbing and heating equipment in two school buildings for $34,975 each. Defendant Federal Surety Company executed the* usual public contractor’s bond in each case.

The one controversy is about two boilers put in the Minnehaha school building, and the other involves two…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. First National Bank of Chisholm v. O'NeilSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
  2. First National Bank of Aitkin v. HagquistSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Fifer v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  2. Fifer v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API