Legal Opinion
Newton v. Highland Improvement Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided November 18, 1895No. Nos. 9339-(34)PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Moer, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
In July, 1892, plaintiff and defendant corporation entered into a contract as follows: “Articles of agreement by and between A. L. Newton and the Highland Improvement Company, entered into this day: Party of the first part agrees to cut, grub, and remove or burn all the timber on the fifth and sixth divisions of Duluth Heights, as directed by the general manager of the Highland Improvement Company, leaving such trees only as he (the manager) may direct; also, to grub all stumps and doAvn timber clean. And on such land as the company may direct that only close cutting be done, it shall be done…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Cussler v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of NewarkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- Peet v. City of East Grand ForksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Palmer v. Watson Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
- Peet v. City of East Grand ForksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Mann v. Farmers Exchange Bk. of GallatinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1932