Conehan v. Crosby
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was brought in the district court for Pice county to recover the sum of $395, alleged to be due the plaintiff from defendant, as an unpaid balance of $552.50, tiie contract price for carrying the mails on route number 13,593, from August 9th, 1867, to April 9th, 1868, at the rate of $780 per year. M. O. Walker was the contractor with tbe P. O. Department, and the defendant a sub-contractor at the rate of $790 per year.
Read the full summary
This action was brought in the district court for Pice county to recover the sum of $395, alleged to be due the plaintiff from defendant, as an unpaid balance of $552.50, tiie contract price for carrying the mails on route number 13,593, from August 9th, 1867, to April 9th, 1868, at the rate of $780 per year. M. O. Walker was the contractor with tbe P. O. Department, and the defendant a sub-contractor at the rate of $790 per year. One of tbe principal questions in the case arises upon the construction of the contract, the material portions of which are as follows: “ The said James Oonehan…
1Opinion of the Court
Ripley, Cu. J.
By ilia Court.' This action is brought to recover the sum of $395 as the unpaid balance of $552.50, alleged to be due from defendant to plaintiff, for carrying the mails between Faribault and Red Wing, from August 9th, 1807, to 25th April, 1868, twice a week eacli way, upon mail route No. 13,598, under a contract with defendant at the stipulated compensation of 780 dollars by the year.
At the trial it appeared that one M. O. Walker had contracted with the P. O. Department to carry the mail on said route from July 1st, 1866, to July 1st, 1870, but at what rate of.compensation did…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Madden v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1883