Anderson v. Nordstrom
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, Holt, J., denying his motion for a new trial. Action for damages for failure to move a building within a reasonable time as agreed by the defendant. The findings of the court are stated in the opinion. cited Tantholt v. Ness, 35 Minn. 370, 29 N. W. 49; Hirt v. Hahn, 61 Mo. 496. cited King v. Nichols & Shepard Co., 53 Minn. 453, 456, 55 N. W. 604.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
The court below found that upon defendant’s failure and neglect to comply with his contract to move plaintiff’s building as he had agreed to do, and for the sum of $135, plaintiff employed one Lunke to do the work, agreeing to pay him $190 therefor, “which appears to be the lowest price plaintiff could procure it to be done for.” Counsel for defendant (appellant) contends not only that the finding was insufficient to justify a conclusion of law that plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $55 by reason of his client’s failure to perform, but that it was not supported by the evidence. *232We cannot…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State ex rel. Childs v. KiichliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- King v. Nichols & Shepard Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
3Cited by6 opinions
- City of Winona v. JacksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- City of St. Paul v. BielenbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Huskey Manufacturing Co. v. Friel-McLeister Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Northwestern Engineering Co. v. EllermanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1946
- Smith Sand & Gravel Co. v. CorbinWashington Supreme Court · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.