Legal Opinion · Dissent

Downing v. Maag

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 2, 1943No. 33,452PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  2. Colby v. StreetSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
  3. Erickson v. Erickson CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
  4. Sommers v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
  5. 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

  1. Downing v. MaagSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API