Minter Bros. v. Hochman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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
- Holland v. SheehanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Wilcox v. DavisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
- Pye v. GrunertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hastings Associates, Inc. v. Local 369 Building Fund, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
- Dick Weatherston's Associated Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Minnesota Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Matter of Great Northern Iron Ore PropertiesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Distillers Distributing Co. v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
- Sponholz v. MeyerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.