Warner v. Fischbach
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Stearns county, McKelvy, J., presiding, affirming a judgment of a justice court on an appeal therefrom upon questions of law. The case is stated in the opinion No consideration is shown on the part of the plaintiffs. Even if defendant’s signature was fairly obtained- to the order, it cannot be enforced, there being no obligation on the part of the plaintiffs to comply with it.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Stearns county, McKelvy, J., presiding, affirming a judgment of a justice court on an appeal therefrom upon questions of law. The case is stated in the opinion No consideration is shown on the part of the plaintiffs. Even if defendant’s signature was fairly obtained- to the order, it cannot be enforced, there being no obligation on the part of the plaintiffs to comply with it. Bailey v. Austrian, 19 Minn. 535; Tarbox v. Gotzian, 20 Minn. 139; 1 Chitty on Cont. 14; 1 Parsons on Cont. 448; 1 Addison on Cont. §§ 17, 18.
1Opinion of the CourtYaNdeRburgh, J.
The district court having affirmed the judgment of the justice court, on appeal brought upon questions of law alone, the defendant appeals to this court. The action was for the price of a map which plaintiffs allege they duly delivered to defendant, upon his written order or subscription, by him signed in their order book, in and by which he agreed to pay therefor the sum of $12 upon its delivery. The record does not purport to contain all the evidence, nor does it appear that either party requested the justice to make a full return. It appears that the order or subscription was introduced in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Andreas v. HolcombeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- Hinds v. American Express Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
3Cited by1 opinion
- Melby v. D. M. Osborne & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885