A. Y. McDonlald Manufacturing Co. v. Lima
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the CourtOlsen, J.
'Appeal by plaintiff in each of these two actions from the judgment entered therein. The court made separate findings of fact and conclusions of law in defendant’s favor in each case. In each case there was a motion to vacate the findings and conclusions and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of plaintiff. The general motions for new trials state no grounds therefor and present no questions for review. The appeals raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain certain findings of fact. By agreement of the parties the two cases were tried together.
Defenda…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Standard Oil Co. v. DaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Shaw v. FjellmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- L. J. Mueller Furnace Co. v. BurkhartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Scheible v. SchicklerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sterling Electric Co. v. KentSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- General Electric Co. v. Anchor Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. HvidstenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Martin Bros. v. Lanesboro Co-Operative Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1936