Maurin v. Fogelberg
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Otter Tail county, Collins, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. cited Lang don v. Richardson, 58 Iowa, 610, (12 N. W. Eep. 622.)
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This is an action to recover for goods alleged to have been sold to defendant, and, at his instance, delivered to Harris & Rogers. Defendant was a contractor in the construction of the Northern Pacific railroad, and Harris & Rogers were subcontractors under him. Defendant gave to plaintiffs the following verbal direction: “You give all the goods to Harris & Rogers that they want, and charge directly to them, and every first of the month you bring in the bill, and I will pay it.” In pursuance of this, plaintiffs delivered to Harris & Rogers the goods sued for. The principal question in the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Grant v. WolfSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Cole v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
3Cited by8 opinions
- May v. RobertsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Conrad v. ClarkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Trulock v. BlairSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1899
- Kansas City Sewer Pipe Co. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1889
- Noyes v. OstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.