Legal Opinion

Northness v. Hillestad

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 31, 1902No. Nos. 13,274-(76)PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

This action was brought to recover the sum of $120.91 — -the proceeds of certain crops raised by plaintiffs, under the terms of a farm contract, upon land owned by defendant, and alleged to have been wrongfully converted by defendant to his own use. Plaintiffs had a verdict in the court below, and defendant appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

1. Taking the points made by appellant in an orderly way, we come first to the question whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It alleges in general terms that the parties entered into an…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hedderly v. DownsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
  2. Smith v. ForceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
  3. Morish v. MountainSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
  2. Semper v. CoatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
  3. Broussard v. Le BlancCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
  4. Olson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914

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

Powered by the Exa API