Madigan v. De Graff
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The plaintiff contracted with defendant to do certain grading on the line of the Winona and St. Peter Railroad. Upon the completion of the work in the fall of 1867, an accounting and settlement was had between the parties, and a certain sum was paid the plaintiff as the balance due him on the contract, for which he executed his receipt to the defendant.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff contracted with defendant to do certain grading on the line of the Winona and St. Peter Railroad. Upon the completion of the work in the fall of 1867, an accounting and settlement was had between the parties, and a certain sum was paid the plaintiff as the balance due him on the contract, for which he executed his receipt to the defendant. The plaintiff brought this suit in the district court for Waseca county, alleging that a mistake occurred at the accounting and settlement, and that owing to such mistake a balance was still due him under the contract. The defendant denied…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
McMillan, J.
The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant, by which he was to do certain grading on the line of the Winona and St. Peter railroad.
Upon the completion of the work, the parties had an accounting and settlement, upon which a certain amount was *56paid to the plaintiff as the balance due under the contract, for which the plaintiff executed to the defendant his receipt.
The plaintiff alleges a mistake in the settlement, and brings this action to recover an amount alleged to be due him. The answer of the defendant alleges a final settlement, denies any mistake.
It…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Young v. CatlettThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sagers v. International Smelting Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1917
- Lawrence v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969