Cooper v. Stinson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellant: First. — That the affirmative allegations in [the answer of the Defendant below, do not contain any new matter constituting a defence, but are merely denials in an affirmative form of the allegations in the Plaintiff’s complaint, and need no reply. Benedict vs. Seymour, 6 How. Pr. R. 298, dec. Whitaker’s Pr. 265; 13 How. Pr. R. 14 ; 21 Barb.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellant: First. — That the affirmative allegations in [the answer of the Defendant below, do not contain any new matter constituting a defence, but are merely denials in an affirmative form of the allegations in the Plaintiff’s complaint, and need no reply. Benedict vs. Seymour, 6 How. Pr. R. 298, dec. Whitaker’s Pr. 265; 13 How. Pr. R. 14 ; 21 Barb. R. 190 ; White vs. Joy, 3 Fernán 83, opinion of Marvin, J. Second. — That the Defendant, having admitted in his answer, that the case was placed in* charge of the Hon.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Atwatee, J.
This was an action brought by the Appellant to recover the value of certain professional services, rendered by the Plaintiff and his agents, for the Defendant at his request, in removing a certain cause fromthe late Territorial Supreme Court, to the Supreme Court of the United States, and for arguing the cause in that Court, in which Stinson, (the Defendant in this action,) was Plaintiff in Error. The Plaintiff claimed judgment for the sum of twelve hundred dollars.
The answer in substance, denies the value of the services as alleged in the complaint, and admits the sum…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fleming v. HollenbackNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Ames & Hoyt v. Gatey, McCune & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1857
- N. E. Tyson & Co. v. Charles J. Kane & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1859