Berghuis v. Schultz
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Waseca county to recover $200 for breach of contract and $200 for loss of time and money expended. The substance of the answer will be found in the opinion, on page 90. The case was tried before Childress, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $200. From an order granting defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtPhilip E. Brown, J.
Action to recover damages in the sum of two hundred dollars for breach of contract. The cause was tried to a jury. The court denied the defendant’s motion, made at the close of the testimony, to direct a verdict in his favor. The plaintiff had a verdict for $200. Thereafter the defendant moved, on a settled case and the fthes and records in the action, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and in case of a denial thereof then for a new trial. The court granted the motion for judgment, and this is an appeal by the plaintiff from the order.
It appears from the record that the jury might have…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. Duluth Board of TradeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Carter v. StromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- National Benefit Co. v. Union Hospital Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Kronschnabel-Smith Co. v. KronschnabelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Hess v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Mevorah v. GoodmanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1953
- McGuckin v. HarveySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Demerce v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Kingsley v. AldenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- Williams v. ThomsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.