Gahagan v. Aermotor Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal in each case by defendant from an order of the district court for Fillmore county, Whytock, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal in each case by defendant from an order of the district court for Fillmore county, Whytock, J., denying a motion for a new trial. The first paragraph of the agency contract referred to in the opinion was as follows: “And said sales agent agrees as follows: 1st. To do all the business pertaining to selling aermotors, towers, grinders, and repairs, to receive all goods shipped to him under this agreement, to pay freight and expressage on such goods from Chicago,, and to keep them well housed and in good order until sold, free of taxes and all charges to said company, and to be governed…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
These actions were brought by the respective plaintiffs to recover damages caused by the negligence of the defendant, — the one by the infant for personal injuries to himself, and the other by his father for loss of his son’s services resulting from the same injuries. Both actions were tried together and re-suited in verdicts for the plaintiffs, — in favor of the infant for $1,800, and in favor of the father for $100.
The negligence charged was the erection and leaving unguarded, in a public street, a windmill, calculated to attract the attention and invite the interference of young children,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rait v. New England Furniture & Carpet Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
3Cited by15 opinions
- Corrigan v. ElsingerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Roe v. WinstonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Kuehmichel v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Cutler v. Pittsburg Silver Peak Gold Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1911
- Winkler v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1902
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.