Beede v. Proehl
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, refusing a new trial. cited 2 Parsons on Cont. 652; Townsend v. Wells, 3 Day, 327; Smith v. Loomis, 7 Conn. 110; Van-liooser v. Logan, 3 Scam. (Ill.) 389; Johnson v. Seymour, 19 Ind. 24; Norton v. Webb, 36 Me. 270; Morey v. Enke, 5 Minn. 316, (392;) Roclaoell v. Rockwell, 4 Hill, 164; Pinneyv.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, refusing a new trial. cited 2 Parsons on Cont. 652; Townsend v. Wells, 3 Day, 327; Smith v. Loomis, 7 Conn. 110; Van-liooser v. Logan, 3 Scam. (Ill.) 389; Johnson v. Seymour, 19 Ind. 24; Norton v. Webb, 36 Me. 270; Morey v. Enke, 5 Minn. 316, (392;) Roclaoell v. Rockwell, 4 Hill, 164; Pinneyv. Gleason, 5 Wend. 393; Newton v. Galbraith, 5 John. 119; Barns v. Graham, 4 Cow. 452; Roberts v. Beatly, 2 P. & W. (Pa.) 63; Church v. Feterow, Id. 301; Steioart v.Donelly, 4 Yerger, (Tenn.) 176.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This action was brought upon the following chattel note, indorsed by the payee to the plaintiffs:
“$104.62. Minneapolis,*April 30, 1884.
“One day after date, I promise to pay to the order of J. H. Tal-madge one hundred and four and 62-100 dollars, at Minneapolis, at my place of business, in lime, cement, or hair, at cash price. * * *
“Ch. Proehl.”
The complaint sets out the note, alleges non-payment, and demands judgment for $104.62, with interest. The pleadings and proeeed-*498ings are rather informal, and the evidence somewhat indefinite on some points; but, taking the allegations of the answer,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gould v. Banks & GouldNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Lamb v. LathropNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Robbins v. LuceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Johnson v. BairdIndiana Supreme Court · 1832
- Fleming v. PotterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hillestad v. HostetterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891