Pfefferkorn v. Seefield
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of tbe district court for Winona -county, Gould, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtBuck, J.
On January 16, 1889, and for several years prior thereto, O. W. Seefield, who was the father of this defendant, had been -engaged in an extensive business, buying and selling grain at various .stations along the railroads, with his office and place of business at St. Charles, Minnesota, where the plaintiffs were engaged in the banking business. For three years prior to this date the defendant had been in the employment of said C. W. Seefield, at St. Charles, in his grain office, for the first year as bookkeeper, and for the last two years as cashier. He was the next man in authority to his…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Berkey v. JuddSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Dayton v. MonroeMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Schmidt v. DurnamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by8 opinions
- Lawless v. CalawayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Anderson v. FlorenceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
- Langford v. IssenhuthSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
- Barnard v. SeamanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Jakula v. StarkeySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.