Hanley v. Noyes
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the municipal court of St. Paul, to recover the value of labor performed and materials furnished in the construction of a house for defendant.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the municipal court of St. Paul, to recover the value of labor performed and materials furnished in the construction of a house for defendant. The answer sets up as a defence that the work performed and materials furnished were part of a large amount of work done and materials furnished by the plaintiff for the defendant, in the construction of said house, and that, after the completion of all the labor performed and materials furnished by the plaintiff, the value and amount thereof (the same being in dispute and unliquidated) were settled and liquidated by an…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
We are compelled to the conclusion that the finding of the court that the settlement between the parties did not include the items of $54.83 and $3'3 is contrary to the undisputed evidence. The instrument “F” executed by plaintiff on the settlement, whether considered a receipt or a contract, is, in any view of the ease, prima facie evidence that every claim for “special” or extra work was included. Plaintiff offered no evidence in explanation of this settlement, and there is nothing to show that it was not just as the writing states — “of all special work done on defendant’s house, ” and “in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Babcock & Russell v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
3Cited by8 opinions
- Behrens v. KruseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Fred W. Wolf Co. v. SalemAppellate Court of Illinois · 1889
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Gillette-Herzog Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Shove v. MartineSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Shaw v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1891
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.