Lautenschlager v. Hunter
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Orosby, J., presiding, (sitting for the judge of the seventh district,) refusing a new trial after a trial before a referee.
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
This is an action to recover a balance due on a building contract, and also to recover for extra labor and materials on the building beyond that called for in the original contract. As to the extra labor and materials, the complaint alleges that they were extra, that defendant requested plaintiff to furnish and perform them, and promised to pay what the same should be reasonably Avorth, and the value of them. The answer as to the extra labor and material, so far as it affects the questions raised here, Avas a general denial, except as to $300.00 in amount. The building contract Avas in…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Leeds v. LittleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. BradburySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Dodge v. McMahanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Iselin v. SimonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Reishus-Remer Land Co. v. BennerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.