Mendenhall v. Ulrich
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for McLeod county, Cadwell, J., denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, after a trial and verdict in favor of defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
Action on a promissory note. Verdict for defendant. The plaintiff appealed from an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. The assignments of error challenge the correctness of the rulings of the trial court as to the admission of evidence, and of its action in refusing to direct a verdict for the plaintiff.
A brief statement of the pleadings is necessary to an understanding of the plaintiff’s contention. The complaint alleged that on August 1, 1900, the defendant made his promissory note dated on that day, and thereby promised,’ for value…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Westman v. KrumweideSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Merchants' Exchange Bank v. LuckowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Bank of Montreal v. RichterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Barber v. KennedySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Shelling State Bank v. ClasenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Samuel H. Chute Co. v. LattaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Farmers' Bank of Roff v. NicholsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Tovera v. ParkerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Silliman v. DobnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.