Beatty v. Howe Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $16,-136.48 for breach of contract. From an order, Ensign, J., overruling a demurrer to the second and third causes of action in the complaint, defendant appealed. At most the action o.f plaintiffs in abandoning the contract amounted to a rescission because of defendant's alleged breach. If plaintiffs elected to rescind, the contract cannot serve as a basis for a claim for future profits.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $16,-136.48 for breach of contract. From an order, Ensign, J., overruling a demurrer to the second and third causes of action in the complaint, defendant appealed. At most the action o.f plaintiffs in abandoning the contract amounted to a rescission because of defendant's alleged breach. If plaintiffs elected to rescind, the contract cannot serve as a basis for a claim for future profits. The right to future profits proceeds on the theory that the contract is in force; and to recover, where performance is a condition precedent to…
1Opinion of the CourtBuck, J.
This action is brought to recover damages for the violation of the terms and conditions of a written contract, made between the parties, and dated September 8, 1897, a copy of which is set out and made a part of the complaint.
The substance of the contract is that plaintiffs, the Beattys, as parties of the first part, agreed with the Howe Lumber Company, as party of the second part, to cut a certain amount of pine lumber, and boom and deliver to the latter, in Vermilion Lake, as early as *274April 10, 1898, all merchantable pine timber on and belonging to certain land in St. Louis county,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Keeler v. CliffordIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
- William Wharton, Jr., & Co. v. WinchNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Cox v. McLaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Palm & Robertson v. Ohio & Mississippi RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1856
- Bethel & Co. v. Salem Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1896
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Helgar Corporation v. . Warner's FeaturesNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Peet v. City of East Grand ForksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Palmer v. Watson Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
- Hjorth v. Albert Lea Machinery Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Percy Kent Co. v. SilbersteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.