Downing v. Maag
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Dissent
A careful examination of all the evidence presented, together with the surrounding facts and circumstances, leads to the conclusion that there is here involved a simple fact question. There is no doubt that if the testimony presented by plaintiff were found to be true and inherently probable it would establish a contract, with adequate consideration for same. We have upheld contracts based upon similar evidence at various times. Wold v. Wold, 138 Minn. 409,165 N.W. 229; Colby v. Street, 146 Minn. 290,178 N.W. 599; Happel v. Happel, 184 Minn. 377, 238 N.W. 783. However, we are confronted with…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Colby v. StreetSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Erickson v. Erickson CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
- Sommers v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Great Northern Railway Co. v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Downing v. MaagSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943