Butler v. Winona Mill Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Winona, county, where the action was tried by Mitchell, J., a jury being waived.. cited Van Arman v. Byington, 38 111. M3; 1 Parsons Cont. (4th Ed.) 539; 1 Chitty on Contracts, 544; Bryant v. Flight, 5 Mees.- & Weis. 114; United States v. Macdanicl, 7 Pet. 1; United States v. Ripley, 7 Pet. 18.
1Opinion of the Court
Clark, J.*
It appears from the findings of fact in this case that the plaintiff performed services for the defendant corporation, under a contract whereby “it was agreed that plaintiff was to enter the service of the defendant in superintending the mason work of a mill, about to be erected by it, and the amount of the plaintiff’s compensation therefor was to be left entirely to the defendant to determine and fix, after the services were performed, at such price and amount as, under all the circumstances, it (defendant) should consider right and proper.” It further appears from the findings…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Foster v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Blaine v. Publishers George Knapp & Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Howard v. Pensacola & Atlantic RailroadSupreme Court of Florida · 1888
- Joseph F. Hogan v. Wilbur C. Wright, D/B/A Wright Construction CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1966
- Frary v. American Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.