Legal Opinion
Paine v. Sherwood
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 11, 1875PublishedCited by 35 opinions
Appeal by defendants from an order of tbe court of common pleas for Bamsey county, Hall, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict for plaintiffs.
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
Tbe plaintiffs sue to recover tbe value of lumber and other articles sold and delivered, and of work and labor performed by them for tbe defendants. After the decision of the former appeal in the action, (19 Minn. 315,) tbe answer was amended. In tbe amended answer tbe defendants set forth tbe following contract:
“ St. Paul, December 2, 1870.
“ We agree to furnish Sherwood & Sewall with timber for three bridges on tbe Northern Pacific Bailroad, at fourteen dollars per M., to be delivered either on tbe cars, or at some convenient place for framing near our mill. Said lumber to bo white pine, of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chaffee & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Taylor v. ReadNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
- Stees v. LeonardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Haskell v. HunterMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Mason & Craig v. HeywardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1859
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Levine v. Lancashire InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Frohreich v. GammonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Liljengren Furniture & Lumber Co. v. MeadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Kleven v. Geigy Agricultural ChemicalsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Adam & SteinbruggeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.