Paine v. Sherwood
Supreme Court of Minnesota
After verdict for the plaintiffs in the court of common pleas for Ramsey county the defendants moved upon a bill of exceptions for a new trial, and they appeal to this court from the order denying such motion. The substance of the pleadings, and the exceptions taken at the trial, are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Berry, J.
This is an action for lumber and *316other goods sold and delivered, and for services rendered, by plaintiffs to defendants.
The answer sets up that the lumber, for which plaintiffs seek to recover, was furnished under a written contract entered into between the parties, in the words and figures following, to-wit: “ St. Paul, December 2d, 1870. We agree to furnish “ Sherwood & Sewall with lumber for three bridges on the “ Northern Pacific Railroad, at fourteen dollars per M, to be “ delivered either on the cars or at some convenient place for “ framing near our mill; said…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Griffin v. . ColverNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Baldwin v. . the United States Telegraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Passinger v. . ThorburnNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Cassidy v. . Le FevreNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Mason & Craig v. HeywardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1859
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Paine v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Beaupré v. Pacific & Atlantic Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Todd v. BettingenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Ortt v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Susewind v. LeverOregon Supreme Court · 1900
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.