Deatherage v. Petruschke
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $330.-81, the balance alleged to be unpaid upon a contract for painting and decorating a certain house. Defendants set up a counterclaim that the work was not done in a workmanlike manner. The case was tried before Ensign, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for $277.21. From an order denying defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, they appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtJaggard, J.
Defendants and appellants let a contract for the remodeling of their house to one Zauft, who sublet part of the work to plaintiffs and respondents. Plaintiffs claimed that they undertook to finish the house more elaborately than was originally contemplated, that they subsequently entered into an oral contract with defendants whereby plaintiffs agreed to do the decorating and defendants to pay $250, that afterward defendants desired other changes and additions, and that plaintiffs fully performed their oral contract and did the work in a proper manner. Defendants insist, inter alia, that no…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Weaver v. BromleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Collins v. ShawMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
- Hazer v. StreichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Rogers v. KrumreiMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sullivan v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924