Legal Opinion

Bradshaw v. Barber

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 29, 1914No. Nos. 18,569 — (109)PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $555.51 upon defendant’s written agreement to be responsible to plaintiffs for the payment of any indebtedness of Lottie J. Barber on account of goods sold and delivered. The answer was a general denial.

Read the full summary

Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $555.51 upon defendant’s written agreement to be responsible to plaintiffs for the payment of any indebtedness of Lottie J. Barber on account of goods sold and delivered. The answer was a general denial. The case was tried before Ensign, J., who denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action and his motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for $585.67. Defendant’s motion for judgment notwitstanding the verdict was granted. Erom the judgment in favor of defendant notwithstanding the…

1Opinion of the CourtPhilip E. Brown, J.

Action to recover upon a continuing guaranty. Plaintiffs had a verdict, which, on defendant’s motion, was vacated and judgment ordered for defendant notwithstanding. Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment entered accordingly.

The facts are undisputed. In 1910 defendant’s sister, Miss Barber, contemplated engaging in the millinery business at Bridge-water, South Dakota, and sought to purchase stock therefor from plaintiffs. In order that she might obtain credit, defendant executed the following instrument, addressed to plaintiffs:

“In consideration of your furnishing to Miss Lottie J. Barber of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. London & San Francisco Bank, Ltd. v. ParrottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Hooper v. HooperCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1895
  3. Lehigh Coal & Iron Co. v. ScallenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
  4. John H. Lyon & Co. v. PlumSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1908
  5. Fall v. YoumansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. American Tobacco Co. v. ChalfenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
  2. Taney v. HodsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  3. Friedman-Shelby Shoe Co. v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
  4. Goodhue County National Bank v. FlemingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  5. Loving & Associates, Inc. v. CarothersCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API