Kappa v. Levstik
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $125 for services rendered to defendant. The answer set up an express agreement and a counterclaim for the breach thereof in the sum of $206.94. The case was tried before Hughes, J., who, when plaintiff rested, denied plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $125 for services rendered to defendant. The answer set up an express agreement and a counterclaim for the breach thereof in the sum of $206.94. The case was tried before Hughes, J., who, when plaintiff rested, denied plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. From an order denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the statement of his counsel relative to the dismissal of the action and to grant a new trial, he appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Pmt Curiam.
This action was brought to recover upon an alleged implied contract. The evidence disclosed an express contract. At the close of plaintiff’s case defendant moved to dismiss. The court held, applying the rule stated in Ecker v. Isaacs, 98 Minn. 146, 107 N. W. 1053, and Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Fritz, 60 Minn. 346, 62 N. W. 391, that rince plaintiff set up in his complaint an implied contract, no> recovery could be had upon the express contract shown by the evidence. Plaintiff' asked to amend the complaint by alleging an express contract. The request, though it might well have been…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ecker v. IsaacsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Gaar, Scott & Co. v. FritzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
3Cited by2 opinions
- DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Meyer v. SaterbakSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915