Brown v. Farnham
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff, Jonas F. Brown, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Robert D. Russell, J., denying his motion for a new trial. The facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action are stated in the report of a former appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. 55 Minn. 27. That order was reversed and the action went down for further proceedings. The defendants answered and the issues were tried before the court without a jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff, Jonas F. Brown, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Robert D. Russell, J., denying his motion for a new trial. The facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action are stated in the report of a former appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. 55 Minn. 27. That order was reversed and the action went down for further proceedings. The defendants answered and the issues were tried before the court without a jury. The only evidence introduced by plaintiff was the tripartite agreement made June 1, 1888. The court on motion of the…
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
Tbis action was before this court on demurrer to the complaint. Tbis court sustained tbe complaint. See opinion in 55 Minn. 27, (56 N. W. 352.) On tbe return of tbe case to tbe court below tbe defendants answered. On tbe trial tbe only evidence offered by plaintiff, or received, was tbe composition agreement referred to in said former opinion. After introducing tbis, plaintiff rested, and on motion of defendants tbe action was dismissed, and, from an order denying bis motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
By tbis composition agreement tbe defendants Farnbam, tbe surviving partner of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. FarnhamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
3Cited by3 opinions
- Peterson v. DareliusSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Bryan v. Capital Trust & Savings BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Hughes v. Globe Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1918