Day v. Raguet
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was brought in the Court of Common Picas for Pamsey county. The complaint sets up two causes of action. The first is based upon an acceptance by the defendants dated July 22, 1867, for $1680.05 : and the second to recover the sum of $756.04, the agreed price for certain goods sol'd to defendants June 14,1867. The answer alleges, in substance, that the consideration of said acceptance was the sale of certain liquors by plaintiffs to defendants, made under a…
Read the full summary
This action was brought in the Court of Common Picas for Pamsey county. The complaint sets up two causes of action. The first is based upon an acceptance by the defendants dated July 22, 1867, for $1680.05 : and the second to recover the sum of $756.04, the agreed price for certain goods sol'd to defendants June 14,1867. The answer alleges, in substance, that the consideration of said acceptance was the sale of certain liquors by plaintiffs to defendants, made under a special contract with one A. T. Ohamblin, as agent of the plaintiffs, and that such sale was by sample, and the liquor was to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
McMillaN, J.
The objection of the defendants to the deposition of Charles F. Lachmund offered in evidence cannot be sustained. By the terms of the stipulations the parties “waive any and all notices and pre-requi-site forms required by law or rule of Court for the taking 'of depositions. ” "While we do not determine that this language dispenses entirely with a return, we think where the depositions under both stipulations áre taken by the same officer, and attached together as they are in this instance, it dispenses with the necessity of a separate return to each stipulation, and…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- City Water Power Co. v. City of Fergus FallsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Watson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Avery v. BurrallMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Wadhams v. BalfourOregon Supreme Court · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.