Legal Opinion

Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Brundage

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 29, 1903No. Nos. 13,509—(125)PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Martin county, Quinn, J., denying a motion for a new trial.

1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.

Action to recover a balance of $102.78 and interest for threshing machine extras and repairs sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The answer denied the allegations of the com*413plaint, and set up a counterclaim for $564, alleged to be due from plaintiff to the defendant as commissions on tbe sale of- a threshing machine outfit. The reply put in issue the' allegations of the answer as to the alleged counterclaim. The cause was tried by the court without a jury. Findings of fact were made, and as a conclusion of law therefrom it was found that the defendant was not entitled to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Adams v. CastleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
  2. Baskerville v. Gaar, Scott & Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Maul v. SteeleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
  2. Cornell v. N. F. C. Engineering Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1966

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API