Legal Opinion

Minter Bros. v. Hochman

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 5, 1950No. 35,130PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

. Magnet, Justice.

Demurrers to the complaint on the ground that the same failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action were sustained. Plaintiff appeals.

*157The complaint sets out that plaintiff possessed the required state and federal licenses and permits to engage in the wholesaling of intoxicating liquors and wines; that defendants were engaged in the business of acting as representatives of rectifiers, distillers, wineries, and importers of wines and intoxicating liquors in Minneapolis; that they represented themselves as experienced in the business of the purchase and sale…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Holland v. SheehanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
  2. Wilcox v. DavisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
  3. Pye v. GrunertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Hastings Associates, Inc. v. Local 369 Building Fund, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
  2. Dick Weatherston's Associated Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Minnesota Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
  3. Matter of Great Northern Iron Ore PropertiesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
  4. Distillers Distributing Co. v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  5. Sponholz v. MeyerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API