Legal Opinion
Oxborough v. St. Martin
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided November 5, 1926No. 25,370PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
The appeal is from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.
The controversy relates to the attorneys’ fees Laybourn & Cary, through whom interveners claim, should recover of defendants. The case on a former appeal is reported in 151 Minn. 514, 187 N. W. 707, 2 A. L. R. 850, where a new trial was granted for the reason that the agreement for the attorneys’ fees, being for part of the land involved in the action, and not in writing, could not be enforced, hence recovery could not be had on the contract, but must rest on quantum meruit. Without objection two questions were submitted…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Davis v. WebberSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- La Du-King Manufacturing Co. v. La DuSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Spinney v. HillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Evans v. Winona, Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Murphy v. De HaanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Walter P. Maksym, Jr. v. Dolores LoeschCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
- Royal Realty Co. v. LevinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Downey v. Union Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Wise v. Midtown Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Pfuhl v. SabrowskySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.