Bosshard v. County of Steele
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentStone, J.
I dissent because I think the rule upon which the majority stand is being misapplied. It is that a plaintiff may recover in a proper case, although he has been party to an illegal agreement, if he can make out a cause of action without reference to that agreement. That rule is established here by our decisions, among others Eagle Roller-Mill Co. v. Dillman, 67 Minn. 232, 69 N. W. 910; Disbrow v. Creamery Pkg. Mfg. Co. 110 Minn. 237, 125 N. W. 115. The limitations of the rule are well illustrated in both of those cases.
The first was upon a fidelity bond. The defense was that in the grain…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Harriman v. Northern Securities Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Bothwell v. Buckbee-Mears CoSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Dent v. FergusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Gibbs & Sterrett Manufacturing Co. v. BruckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- First Division of the St. Paul & Pacific Rail Road v. ParcherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.