Rosenfield v. Newman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, A. Newman, from an order of the District Court of Otter Tail County, L. L. Baxter, J., made April 10, 1894, denying his motion for a new trial after verdict for plaintiff for $180. After plaintiff rested his case defendant moved the court to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiff had not proved facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court refused and •defendant excepted.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, A. Newman, from an order of the District Court of Otter Tail County, L. L. Baxter, J., made April 10, 1894, denying his motion for a new trial after verdict for plaintiff for $180. After plaintiff rested his case defendant moved the court to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiff had not proved facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court refused and •defendant excepted. This written lease contains no stipulation that the sink on the second floor was in good condition or that it would be kept so; no warranty that the premises, or any part of them,…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The defendant was the owner of a two-story building, the first story being designed for a store and the second story being divided into several rooms, suited for offices and small tenements. On-the second floor was a water-closet and a sink, designed for the use and accommodation of the tenants on that floor. The sink was furnished with a pipe and faucet for the purpose of supplying water. This faucet -was of the kind generally used in such places, being a “compressed bibb” or screw, and not a self-closing faucet. In the bottom of the sink was a strainer, connected with a waste pipe to carry…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Le Vette v. Hardman EstateWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Segal v. Bloom Brothers Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
- Russell v. LittleIdaho Supreme Court · 1912
- Shanander v. Western Loan & Building Co.California Court of Appeal · 1951
- Leavitt v. WilliamsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1917