Legal Opinion
Abramovich v. Continental Can Co. Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 5, 1926No. 25,089PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, O.
Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York. Its main office and place of business is in the city of New York, but it also has a branch office and a factory in the city of Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff is engaged in business in the city of St. Paul, Minnesota. Plaintiff purchased a quantity of goods from defendant which were shipped to him from Chicago. This action is to recover damages for an alleged breach of warranty as to the quality of the goods. The summons and complaint were served upon one E. T. Burt in the city of St. Paul. Defendant appeared…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Minnesota Commercial Men's Assn. v. BennSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Doe v. Springfield Boiler & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1900
- Wold v. J. B. Colt Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- North Wisconsin Cattle Co. v. Oregon Short Line RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Kendall v. Orange Judd Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Dahl v. ColletteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
- Paterson v. Shattuck Arizona Copper Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Continental Convention & Show Management, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Hilmes v. Marlin Firearms Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1955
- Dahl v. ColletteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.