Kelly-How-Thomson Co. v. Merritt Development Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in tbe district court for St. Louis county to recover $597.49 upon an account stated. The ease was tried before Fesler, J., who at the close of the testimony denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
Plaintiff sued to recover $597.49, setting forth the demand in two counts: The first, for goods sold and delivered to defendant of that agreed value; and the second, an account stated in the same amount. At the close of the evidence both parties moved for a directed verdict. Plaintiff’s motion was granted, on the ground that the evidence conclusively established an account stated in the sum demanded. Defendant appeals from the order refusing to vacate the verdict and grant a new trial.
The second count of the complaint “alleges that heretofore and on or about the 21st day of April, 1919, an…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Auzerais v. NagleeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Schutz v. . MoretteNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Martin v. HeinzeMontana Supreme Court · 1904
- Heinrich v. EnglundSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Lyell v. WalbachCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1909
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Meagher v. KavliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Hall-Vesole Co. v. Durkee-Atwood Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1949