Legal Opinion

Zieve v. Holstad Coffee Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 31, 1936No. 31,107PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Julius J. Olson, Justice.

Plaintiff prevailed in his action to recover a claimed balance under the terms of an express contract. Defendant’s motion for amended findings or new trial was denied, and it appeals.

In 1909 plaintiff entered into an agreement with S.. H. Holstad & Company whereby he was to furnish that company with fruit and flavoring extracts and was to pack and deliver the same for and to it under labels and in containers bearing its name and advertising. For that purpose he was to prepare or procure dies, electros, labels, label cuts, containers, and cartons, all bearing its name…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Benedict v. PfunderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
  2. McArdle v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
  3. Dybvig v. Minneapolis SanatoriumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  4. Musgrove v. City of JacksonMississippi Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Boland v. MorrillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
  2. Bergstedt, Wahlberg, Berquist Associates, Inc. v. RothchildSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  3. Roberge v. Cambridge Cooperative Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
  4. Crince v. KulzerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
  5. Epland v. Meade Insurance Agency Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996

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