Linne v. Forrestal
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiffs, Frank J. Linne and S. P. Spates, partners as F. J. Linne & Co., from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Kerr, J., made February 9, 1892, granting a new trial. October 24, 1889, James Forrestal made a contract with the city of St. Paul to construct for it certain sewers.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiffs, Frank J. Linne and S. P. Spates, partners as F. J. Linne & Co., from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Kerr, J., made February 9, 1892, granting a new trial. October 24, 1889, James Forrestal made a contract with the city of St. Paul to construct for it certain sewers. He, as principal, and John Bell, Terence Kinney, George Mitsch and James G. Donnelly, as sureties, executed to the city, for the use of all persons who might perform labor or furnish material in the execution of the contract, a bond conditioned to pay all just claims for such labor and…
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
Conceding that, as claimed by plaintiffs, Forrestal was bound by what was said between Spates and Welker, still the preponderance of the evidence on the issue as to the $900 note was, when the probabilities of the case are taken into account,' against the verdict. Forrestal owed the plaintiffs; the latter owed the cement company and seem to have had no money to pay it; and Forrestal had no money to pay plaintiffs, whereupon they requested that he give his note to the cement company, and he did so. It is hard to believe that he gave it merely for the accommodation of the cement company, there…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hicks v. StoneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1868
- Menzel v. TubbsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by2 opinions
- Larson v. TwetenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
- Wadleigh v. Duluth Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1904