Cummings v. Newell
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Clay county to recover $349 for the conversion, of wheat. The case was tried before Baxter, J., who directed a verdict for plaintiff for the sum demanded. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtLovely, J.
This action is to recover for the conversion of crops grown upon lands purchased of defendant by plaintiff. At the close of the evidence the trial court directed a verdict for plaintiff for- the amount claimed in his complaint. A motion was made to set *131aside the verdict, and for judgment notwithstanding the same, or for a new trial in the alternative. From the denial of this motion defendant appeals.
The undisputed facts are as follows: Defendant was the owner of a tract of land in Clay county. Previous to the season of 1901 he had a cropping contract with a third party, whereby the land was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lindley v. GroffSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Tatge v. TatgeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Lee v. FletcherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hollingsworth v. HicksNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1953
- Krakow v. WilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Gray v. BeardOregon Supreme Court · 1913
- Scott v. StoneSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Kammrath v. KiddSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.