Seitz v. Michel
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Ramsey county. From an order, Hanft, J., sustaining defendants’ separate demurrers to the complaint, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
All of the 13 defendants demur to the complaint upon the ground that several causes of action are improperly united. Seven of them add the ground of insufficiency of facts. From orders sustaining the demurrers the plaintiff appeals.
In 1891 the plaintiff and the defendant Theodore Michel entered into a copartnership in the plumbing and heating business and the manufacture of plumbers’ specialties. There was no written agreement and the terms were indefinite. The defendant was active in the financial and business interests of the copartnership and the plaintiff looked after the mechanical part.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Venner v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- Smith v. DennettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1870
- Groh v. FlammerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Niven v. PeoplesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
- Stoddard v. Bell & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Seitz v. MichelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Seitz v. Union Brass & Metal Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Briggs v. Kennedy Mayonnaise Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1941