Rich v. City of Minneapolis
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district cburt for Hennepin county, Young, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, the action having been dismissed when plaintiff rested his case.
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
The stone for which a recovery is sought in this action was excavated in one of the public streets of the city of Minneapolis by Rogers & Downs. Plaintiff claims that they were the agents of the city in doing the work.in the prosecution of which the stone in question was taken out, and alleges in his complaint that, in pursuance of the proper order of the city council, the defendant executed a written contract with Rogers & Downs, “whereby it was agreed by and between the defendant and the said Rogers & Downs that they* shotfld grade to the full width, and to the established grade,” the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Rich v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
3Cited by10 opinions
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. MashoreSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Stearns v. KennedySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Carpenter v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Willard v. MohnNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Rudnick v. ShoenbergSupreme Court of Delaware · 1923
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.