Moline-Milburn Co. v. Franklin
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Henne-pin county, Rea, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This was an action to recover possession of a lot of buggies, alleged to have been obtained from plaintiff by defendant, in exchange for a note against S. E. Hart & Co., by false and fraudulent representations as to the solvency of the makers. It appears that in the latter part of June, 1886, defendant employed one Max Zimmerman to sell or dispose of for him four notes executed by S. E. Hart *138& Co., amounting in all to $2,000. The arrangement between them*, was that Zimmerman was to have one-half of all he could get for the paper over $1,200; that defendant was not to be known in the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Jordan v. OsgoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Safford v. GroutMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Bruce v. . BurrNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- James v. HodsdenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1874
- Allison v. MatthieuNew York Supreme Court · 1808
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Meland v. YoungbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Baylies v. Vanden BoomWyoming Supreme Court · 1929
- Kraus v. National Bank of Commerce of MankatoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
- Old Colony Life Insurance v. MoegleinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Moulton v. NortonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.