Plymouth Cordage Co. v. Seymour
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Company and Van Santvoord and another, its receivers, and Cheney and another, trustees, from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Brill, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
The solution of the questions raised by this appeal depends upon the construction to be given to the contract designated as “Exhibit A” in the record. This contract relates to the affairs of the plaintiff, the Plymouth Cordage Company, a Massachusetts corporation, (heueinafter referred to as the “Cordage Company,”) the Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Company, a New York corporation, (hereinafter called the “New York Company,”) and the Walter A. Wood Harvester Company, a Minnesota corporation, having its principal place of business at St. Paul, and hereinafter styled the “St. Paul…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Christmas v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Fisher v. New-York Common PleasNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Newton v. NewtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Bank of Farmington v. EllisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
3Cited by11 opinions
- National Surety Co. v. WinslowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Moffett v. ParkerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Mead v. RandallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- Fritz v. RamspottSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Hohag v. Northland Pine Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.