Chase v. Blaisdell
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL PROM TUB DISTRICT COURT 01 IIENNEPIN COUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellants. Tirst. — That it appearing from the complaint that the Defendants were the mere gratuitous agents of the Plaintiff and others, to collect and dispose of certain pine logs scattered in Lake Pepin, pay all expenses, and divide the surplus, if any, among the owners, and that they took possession and disposed of said logs under their appointment as such agents; the Plaintiff, to show a…
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM TUB DISTRICT COURT 01 IIENNEPIN COUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellants. Tirst. — That it appearing from the complaint that the Defendants were the mere gratuitous agents of the Plaintiff and others, to collect and dispose of certain pine logs scattered in Lake Pepin, pay all expenses, and divide the surplus, if any, among the owners, and that they took possession and disposed of said logs under their appointment as such agents; the Plaintiff, to show a cause of action against such agents, must aver either that the whole of the proceeds have been received, that the expenses…
1Opinion of the CourtEmmett, C. J.
By the Court. The Appellant has raised' an unusually large number of points in this case, and others still are suggested by an examination of the record. But it will not be necessary to notice them in detail, as we think that all the errors committed are justly attributable to the one great fundamental mistake, of treating this as an action of trover for the logs confided by the Plaintiff to the Defendants under the agreement set out in the pleadings. This erroneous view of the case seems to have been taken alike by the Court and the counsel for the Plaintiff.
Had the Defendants become…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Aylesbury Mercantile Co. v. FitchSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- McInerney & Conway Finance Corp. v. SmithWyoming Supreme Court · 1931
- State ex rel. Becker v. Brotherhood of American YeomenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910