Vent v. Duluth Coffee & Spice Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Ensign J., denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
On April 23, 1894, plaintiffs and the defendant corporation (then called the Smith & Coulter Spice Company) entered into the following agreement: “Parties of the first part [plaintiffs] agree to- take five thousand ($5,000) dollars’ worth of capital stock of the Smith & Coulter Spice Cods stock at par value, to be paid for on or before May 1st, ’94, which is to represent one-fourth interest in all assets of the company at this date. Parties of the second part [defendant] agree that on April 1st, 1895, if said parties of the first part are dissatisfied with the said stock or interest in said…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Browne v. St. Paul Plow WorksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
3Cited by32 opinions
- Schulte v. Boulevard Gardens Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Porter v. Plymouth Gold Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904
- Mannington v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1910
- McIntyre v. E. Bement's SonsMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
- Kom v. Cody Detective Agency, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1913
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.