Chalmers v. Whittemore
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant, being the contractor for building a church at Minneapolis, made a contract with plaintiff to slate the roof, being 121 48-100 squares, at the price of $15.00 per square, plaintiff to furnish the slates, which, as well as the work, were to be of the best quality.
Read the full summary
Defendant, being the contractor for building a church at Minneapolis, made a contract with plaintiff to slate the roof, being 121 48-100 squares, at the price of $15.00 per square, plaintiff to furnish the slates, which, as well as the work, were to be of the best quality. When plaintiff had finished one side of the roof, being about fifty-seven squares, the defendant refused to permit him to complete the work, whereupon plaintiff brought this action for damages for defendant’s breach of the contract. In his answer the defendant alleged that the slate furnished and work done were of inferior…
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
Where any unauthorized communication is made to a juror in a cause on trial, which may have influenced his mind in favor of the successful party, a new trial will be granted for that reason ; but if it is apparent that the communication could not have had such influence, it is no ground for a new trial. In this case the statement made by the defendant’s witness Pray to the juror Copeland tended to support the defence, and to prejudice the juror in favor of defendant, but could not possibly influence him in favor of plaintiff.
The remark by the juror McHerron to the witness Wis-hart, made while…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. SchifskySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Oswald v. Minneapolis & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Manley v. HoltCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1942