Legal Opinion

D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Doherty

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 21, 1888PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal by plaintiff (a corporation) from an order of the district court for Le Sueur county, Edson, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.

Defendant, a married woman, was sued.upon her promissory note, and by her answer set up that there was no consideration for its execution and delivery. Upon the conclusion of defendant’s testimony, which was wholly devoted to the matter of want of consideration, plaintiff asked that a verdict be directed for the full amount of the note, which was refused.' Witnesses for plaintiff were then examined, arguments made by counsel, and a charge on the law bearing upon the issues given by the court to the jury, when, for some reason not apparent from the record, a verdict was ordered for the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Thompson v. GraySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1874
  2. Atherton v. MarcySupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
  3. Holm v. SandbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. KuhnNebraska Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Zuendt v. DoernerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API