Legal Opinion

Lindstrom v. Minnesota Liquid Fertilizer Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 8, 1963No. 38,607PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Murphy, Justice.

Action for labor and materials furnished by plaintiff, Anund T. Lindstrom, to defendant, Minnesota Liquid Fertilizer Company, a Minnesota corporation. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for $2,338.90, and defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

The labor and material furnished by plaintiff were ordered by one Hurley Weaver, who represented to plaintiff that he was acting for defendant in the transactions. Defendant denies that he was its agent or employee and contends that the evidence…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Angell v. White Eagle Oil & Refining Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  2. Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of CommerceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
  3. Koivisto v. Bankers & Merchants Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
  4. Gulf Refining Co. v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933
  5. Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Duluth Herald & News Tribune v. Plymouth Optical Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
  2. Powell v. MVE Holdings, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
  3. Hagel v. Buckingham Wood Products, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1977
  4. McNeely v. Clayton and Lambert Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1968
  5. Teva Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2018

1 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