Legal Opinion

Loranger v. Big Missouri Mining Co.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided January 12, 1895PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from circuit court, Lawrence county. Hou. Charles M. Thomas, Judge. Action to recover for goods sold and delivered. From a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, after striking out defendant’s-answer as sham, defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Read the full summary

Appeal from circuit court, Lawrence county. Hou. Charles M. Thomas, Judge. Action to recover for goods sold and delivered. From a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, after striking out defendant’s-answer as sham, defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. At common law, under the general issue, the law gave the parties the right to have the disputed facts tried by jury, and also required of the plaintiff to establish by common law evidence all of the material facts necessary to show his right to a recovery. Broome v, Lewis, 18 Wend, 565; Wyland v. Tysen, 45 N. Y. 281; Fay v.…

1Opinion of the CourtKellam, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the circuit court of Lawrence county against the appellant, as defendant, after striking out its answer as sham. The complaint states the cause of action as follows: “(2) That this plaintiff furnished to the defendant, at its request, during the month of July, 1893, certain mining timbers, to the amount and value of four hundred ninty-nine dollars and ninty-six cents, for which defendant promised and agreed to pay said sum on August 10, 1893. (3) That plaintiff furnished to the defendant, at its request, during the month of August, 1893, certain…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Wayland v. . TysenNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
  2. Robert Gere Bank v. InmanNew York Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Greenbaum v. TurrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Roby v. HallockNew York Supreme Court · 1878
  5. Samuel Cupples Wooden Ware Co. v. JensenSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1886

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Pacific Mill Co. v. InmanOregon Supreme Court · 1907
  2. King v. WaiteSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897

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

Powered by the Exa API