Johnson v. Howard
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiffs, Edward M. Johnson and W. H. Hinds, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Lochren, J., made June 18, 1892, refusing a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiffs, Edward M. Johnson and W. H. Hinds, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Lochren, J., made June 18, 1892, refusing a new trial. The plaintiffs, partners as W. H. Hinds & Co., doing business at Coon Creek, Anoka County, on December 1, 1887, entered into a written contract with the firm of Woodcock & Nunn, composed of Frank W. Woodcock and Jesse E. Nunn, by the terms of which Woodcock & Nunn agreed to sell and deliver to Hinds & Co. at Coon Creek, one thousand cords of wood. Hinds & Co. were to pay for the wood by paying at maturity certain notes of Jesse…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
The main issue on the trial below was whether a certain contract in writing, executed by J. R. Nunn in the name of Woodcock & Nunn, of which firm he was a member, to these plaintiffs, for the sale to them of the wood in controversy, and which contract, if performed, would be in effect an appropriation of partnership property in payment of the individual debt of Nunn, was executed with the consent of Woodcock, the other partner. On that issue the evidence sustains the finding of the jury.
The plaintiff several times offered in evidence the books of account, or pages from the books of account,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mitchell v. DaviesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by4 opinions
- Mitchell v. DaviesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Ammon v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Schall v. Northland Motor Car Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Gutmann v. KlimekSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911