Disbrow Manufacturing Co. v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court "for Steele county upon three causes of action to recover $100,000, $2,921.50 and $400 respectively upon a certain contract. The answers pleaded the pendency of a former action in the same court and between the same parties. From an order, Childress, J., sustaining a demurrer to defendant’s amended second defense to plaintiff’s first cause of action, defendánts appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Defendants separately pleaded in defense to plaintiff’s first cause of action the pendency of a former action between the same parties, and appealed from an order, sustaining plaintiff’s general demurrer thereto.
■The facts, so far as essential to an understanding of the question presented, are, without unnecessary detail, as follows: One Reuben Disbrow was the owner of, or claimed, to own, certain patents and patent rights, some of which he had assigned to others. They all *435concerned and centered around patented churns or combined churns and butter workers discovered and invented by him. A…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Shields v. BarrowSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- Haas v. RigheimerIllinois Supreme Court · 1906
- Whitcomb v. HardySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- Disbrow v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Van Vleck v. AndersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Dettenborn v. Hartford-National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- Colby v. StreetSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Seeger v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Potter v. EnglerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Higgins v. LamoreauxSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924