Friesenhahn v. Bushnell
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants, William M. and Alvin B. Bushnell, from an order of the district court for Bamsey county, Egan, J., presiding,, refusing a new trial after a verdict of $435.65 for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This action was brought to recover back money paid' by plaintiff to defendants, to be by them, as his agents, invested for him in the purchase of real estate, but which it is alleged they never in fact invested. The substance of the answer, briefly stated, is that-the money was received by defendants to be invested in what they call “investment No. 84, according to their investment plan,” and that-they had so invested it. We shall not attempt to explain the very novel and peculiar scheme which defendants call “their investment-plan;” for, except so far as communicated and explained to the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Boyd v. JacobsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894
- McNiel v. HolmesOregon Supreme Court · 1915
- Boyd v. JacobsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894