Maxwell v. Lee
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Hen-nepin county, Young, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The plaintiff brings this action to recover the balance of the contract price of a quantity of logs sold and delivered to defendants. Defendants, by way of counterclaim, allege that the logs delivered were unsound, and not of the quality agreed on, and ask to recoup their damages against the claim of plaintiff. The contract between the parties was drawn rather inartificially, and without much regard to the order of time; but, according to our construction, its terms were as follows: Plaintiff was, during the logging season of 1883-84, to cut and bank on Bradbury brook 500,000 feet or more of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Reed v. . RandallNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Brigg v. . HiltonNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Gurney v. Atlantic & Great Western Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Day v. . PoolNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Parks v. . Morris Ax and Tool Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Talbot Paving Co. v. GormanMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Brown v. BairdSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1897
- Inland Products Corp. v. Donovan Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
- Gaar, Scott & Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Halley v. FolsomNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.