Beidler & Robinson Lumber Co. v. Coe Commission Co.
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Cass county; Pollock, J. Action by the Beidler & Robinson Lumber Company against The Coe Commission Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. There must be a concurrence of both the contracting parties of the unlawful purpose or the contract will not be void. If one acts in good faith it is valid. Mohr v. Miesen, 49 N. W. 862; McCarthy v. Weare Com.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Cass county; Pollock, J. Action by the Beidler & Robinson Lumber Company against The Coe Commission Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. There must be a concurrence of both the contracting parties of the unlawful purpose or the contract will not be void. If one acts in good faith it is valid. Mohr v. Miesen, 49 N. W. 862; McCarthy v. Weare Com. Co., 91 N. W. 33; Donovan v. Daiber, 82 N. W. 848. The court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion, after verdict, and ordering judgment in its favor, notwithstanding the verdict, and in encering judgment…
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
Plaintiff brings this action to recover the sum of $8,667.71, which it claims its agent, one F. H. Carter, appropriated from its funds and paid to the defendant in a series of gambling transactions. At the close of the testimony both parties moved for a directed verdict. Both motions were denied. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Thereafter the plaintiff moved *644upon the minutes for the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial. The motion for judgment was granted for the full amount claimed, and the defendant appeals from the judgment.
The defendant assigns error…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Irwin v. WilliarSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Meehan v. Great Northern Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
- Pine Tree Lumber Co. v. City of FargoNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
- Richmire v. Andrews & Gale Elevator Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
- Aetna Indemnity Co. v. SchroederNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Erickson v. WiperNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
- Glasgow v. NichollsWashington Supreme Court · 1923
- Fogler v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1928
- Higgs v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1908
- Austad v. DreierNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.