Legal Opinion

Starkey v. De Graff

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 22, 1876PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The plaintiffs, sub-contractors under defendants, by a written contract, for doing the earth-work on a portion of the line of the St. Paul, Stillwater & Taylor’s Falls Railroad, brought this action to recover (among other things) the value of building a box culvert, as work not included in the contract, and the increased cost of work done in frozen ground, as to which last item it is alleged that the necessity for doing frost-work was occasioned by wrongful conduct of…

Read the full summary

The plaintiffs, sub-contractors under defendants, by a written contract, for doing the earth-work on a portion of the line of the St. Paul, Stillwater & Taylor’s Falls Railroad, brought this action to recover (among other things) the value of building a box culvert, as work not included in the contract, and the increased cost of work done in frozen ground, as to which last item it is alleged that the necessity for doing frost-work was occasioned by wrongful conduct of defendants, and that the defendants promised to pay plaintiffs the increased cost thereof above the contract price, the…

1Opinion of the CourtCornell, J.

Under the rulings and instructions of the court of common pleas, plaintiff’s right of recovery was restricted to two items — one for frost excavation, under the first count, and the other for the construction of the box *433culvert, specified under the second count of the complaint. Hence, the only questions that need be considered are those relating to these items.

Evidence was introduced tending to show a parol modification of the original written contract in respect to the price defendants Avere to pay for whatever excavation plaintiffs might do in frozen ground, as claimed in the complaint,…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. McCoy v. AbleIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Kistler v. Indianapolis & St. Louis RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  3. Larkin v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
  4. Lingeman v. ShirkIndiana Court of Appeals · 1896
  5. Potter v. HolmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API