Whalon v. Aldrich
Supreme Court of Minnesota
ERROR TO TH3 DISTRICT COTJRT OR HENNEPIN COUNTY. Points and Authorities of. Plaintiffs in Error. I. — The Oonrt below committed error in receiving testimony in regard to the stage of water upon the streams where said .logs were situate, without first proving the express contract in •their'answer.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO TH3 DISTRICT COTJRT OR HENNEPIN COUNTY. Points and Authorities of. Plaintiffs in Error. I. — The Oonrt below committed error in receiving testimony in regard to the stage of water upon the streams where said .logs were situate, without first proving the express contract in •their'answer. II. — The Court below committed error in receiving testimony (see second exception,) as to the cost of driving that year the logs left after driving season of 1857. 3d Rill, 333; 14th John., 170/ 15th do., 24; 81s£ Wend., 342; sec. bedgwicTc on Damages, Zd Ed., pages S3 and 34. III. — The verdict is…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Flandrau, J.
The decision of this case has been delayed- by reason of the time for the filing of the brief *347for tbe Defendant in Error baying been extended. Tbe counsel for tbe Defendant in Error complains that tbe abstract of tbe return furnished to us by bis adversary “ does not state-tbe facts and issues clearly,” and asks that we refer to tbe original return. On application to tbe clerk for tbe original record, we are informed tfyat it was taken from the files by tbe counsel for tbe Defendant in Error, and has been lost. We are, therefore, confined to the abstract in coming to…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Garfield & Proctor Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania Coal & Coke Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Paine v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872
- Taylor v. ParkerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Wilson & Aull v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- Rock v. Gustaveson Oil Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1922
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.