Legal Opinion
City of Marshall v. Kalman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided November 3, 1922No. 22,805PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Lees, C.
Appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint interposed on the ground that the facts stated do not constitute a cause of action, the court having duly certified that the demurrer raised important and doubtful questions.
The action was brought to recover damages for the breach of a contract to purchase or find purchasers for certificates of indebtedness issued by plaintiff pursuant to chapter 65, p. 62, Laws 1919. On December 26, 1918, defendant presented a communication to the city council, reading as follows:
“We propose to finance you for street improvement work you may…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Bell v. KirklandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- National Furnace Co. v. Keystone Manufacturing Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1884
- Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co. v. LangdonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co. v. BroomfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Hickey v. O'BrienMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Harriet State Bank v. SamelsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Imperial Refining Co. v. Kanotex Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928
- Truesdale v. FriedmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
- City of Minneapolis v. Republic Creosoting Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Petroleum Refractionating Corp. v. Kendrick Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1933
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.