Wilson v. Hoy
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the municipal court of St. Paul to recover $500 for breach of contract. The answer specifically denied that plaintiff ever purchased the premises described in the complaint or agreed to purchase them. The case was tried before Finehout, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $200. Prom an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, J.
This is an action to recover damage's for the breach by defendant of an alleged contract to purchase certain real estate. The issues under the pleadings were: (1) Was a valid contract entered into? (2) If so, what were the damages to plaintiff by its breach? The trial was by the court without a jury, and resulted in a decision that the contract was made and broken by defendant, and that plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $200. Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
The questions here are as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision of the trial court on the two…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Costello v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
- McDaniel v. DavesSupreme Court of Virginia · 1924
- Frank v. JansenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Gregory Co. v. ShapiroSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Schwinn v. GriffithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.