Granger v. Harriman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Le Sueur county, Cadwell, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Action to recover upon a .promissory note, in which judgment on the pleadings was ordered for defendant by the trial court, and plaintiff áppealed from an order denying a new trial.
The facts are as follows: The promissory note upon which the action is founded was given by defendant to James Morrison March 10, 1887. Morrison died intestate in 1889, leaving, him surviving, a widow and two children, his sole heirs; one of the children being plaintiff in this action. His widow died in 1890. No administration of the estate of either was ever had, the two children, the only heirs, having amicably…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Foote v. FooteMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- McCracken v. McCaslinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Glover v. HillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Roberts v. MessingerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- McFeely v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Farmer v. CrosbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Murphy v. MurphyWashington Supreme Court · 1906
- Dunlop v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1948
- State ex rel. Speckart v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1907
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.