Dodge v. McMahan
Supreme Court of Minnesota
• Appeal by defendant from an order of tbe district court for Marshall copnty, Ives, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This was an action to recover money “loaned to tbe defendant, and paid for bis use and benefit.” Tbe answer was a general denial. Tbe plaintiffs offered evidence tending to prove-that tbe defendant employed them, as commission men, to buy for bim 5,000 bushels of wheat for future delivery, on a margin of five cents per bushel, and at tbe same time requested them, if this margin should be exhausted by a decline in tbe market, not to allow bim to be “sold out,” but to put up the additional margins for him, and then advise bim -or draw on bim for tbe amount; that tbe amount sued for was money…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Brown v. EatonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Powers v. AmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1864
- Lautenschlager v. HunterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
3Cited by11 opinions
- Raymond v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- Trovatten v. HansonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Hahn v. BettingenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Cook v. KittsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- Van Dusen-Harrington Co. v. JungeblutSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.