Thornton v. City of East Grand Forks
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Polk county to recover $4,821.91 upon a paving contract as evidenced by certain estimates for work allowed and issued. The facts are stated in the opinion. .From an order, Watts, J., sustaining a demurrer of the defendant to the complaint, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
Appeal from the order of the district court of the county of Polk, which sustained the defendant’s general demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it appeared upon its face that the alleged cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. The action was commenced March 30, 1908. The allegations of the complaint relevant to the question whether the action is barred are to the effect following:
The defendant is a municipal corporation, organized under and by virtue of Laws 1895, p. 16, c. 8. On August 13, 1902, the defendant and Patrick H. Thornton duly entered into a contract…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Merchants National Bank v. City of East Grand ForksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Peet v. City of East Grand ForksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Peet v. City of East Grand ForksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. TupaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- Ferrier v. McCabeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Gilbert v. GilbertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- McKitrick v. Travelers Equitable Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Peet v. City of East Grand ForksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909