Lufkin v. Harvey
Supreme Court of Minnesota
After the former appeal reported in 125 Minn. 458, 47 N. W. 444, the answer was. amended to set up as a new defense that the minor, prior to the performance of plaintiffs services, had been emancipated. The case was tried before Finehout, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendants. Prom an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHallah, J.
This ease was before this court on a former appeal. 125 Minn. 458, 147 N. W. 444. The action was brought to charge defendants with liability for medical and surgical services furnished to a minor son. On the former trial, the trial court, trying the case without a jury, held that plaintiff had pleaded only an express contract, and that no express contract was proven, and on this ground decided the case for defendants. This court held that the complaint pleaded also an implied contract and that there was evidence of an implied contract, and remanded the case to be tried on all the evidence.…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Taubert v. TaubertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Porter v. PowellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Dierker ex rel. Shoemake v. HessSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Gordon v. PotterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1845
- Donegan v. DavisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Mechler v. McMahonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Diamond v. DiamondNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2012
- Detwiler v. DetwilerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Cafaro v. CafaroSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.