Moe v. Harris
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $1,852.'?’4. Defendants’ demurrers to the complaint on the ground that the facts stated did not constitute a cause of action were sustained, Eesler, J. From the order sustaining the demurrers to the complaint, plaintiffs appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Lees, C.
'Appeal from order sustaining a demurrer to plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that it stated no cause of action. The facts as alleged were ■in substance as follows: In September, 1911, articles of incorporation and proof of their publication were filed in the office of the secretary of state by three of the defendants, who attempted to organize a corporation known as the “Yale Mining Company.” The defendants who caused this to be done were named in the articles as directors and officers of the corporation, to serve until their successors were elected and had qualified. No subsequent…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Finnegan v. NoerenbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- First National Bank v. AlmyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Johnson v. OkerstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- Walton v. OliverSupreme Court of Kansas · 1892
- American Radiator Co. v. KinnearWashington Supreme Court · 1909
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Crouch v. GrayTennessee Supreme Court · 1926
- School District No. 1 v. AitonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Wildung v. Security Mortgage Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Warthan v. Midwest Consolidated Insurance Agencies, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
- Harris v. Stephens Wholesale Bldg. Supply Co., Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1975
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.