Farrell v. Burbank
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants, H. C. Burbank, B. F. Bloomingdale and F. H. Campbell, from an order of the Municipal Court of the City of St. Paul, II. W. Cory, J., made December 16, 1893, denying their motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
Plaintiff was a traveling salesman for defendants during the year 1890, and during the year 1891, up to October 20th of that year. This is an action stating three causes of action, — the first for a balance claimed to be due plaintiff for his services in 1890, the second for a balance claimed to be due him for his services in 1891, and the third for $15.20, which he claims he paid out for his traveling expenses in 1891, and which defendants have not repaid.
The case was tried by the court below without a jury, and the court found in plaintiff’s favor on the first cause of action a balance due…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Griffin v. JorgensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
3Cited by2 opinions
- Burt v. State Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
- Dwinnell v. OftedahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952