Legal Opinion
Hausman v. Mulheran
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided April 26, 1897No. Nos. 10,303—(20)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Smith, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
1. There was no inconsistency between the admission in the answer that there was due from defendant to plaintiff a certain sum for rent, and the counterclaim for a larger sum for repairs on the building made by defendant under plaintiff’s agreement to pay and reimburse him therefor.
2. The allegations of the answer are that the agreement was that defendant should make repairs “where repairs should and might become necessary”; that, “in pursuance of said agreement,” the defendant made certain repairs, and expended in so doing a specified amount. The point was made on the trial that the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Smith v. Mine & Smelter Supply Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1907
- Rees v. StormsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Ratcliff v. SharrockSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Haycraft v. AdamsUtah Supreme Court · 1933