Shepard v. Carpenter
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff, Engene S. Shepard, from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County, William Loehren and Frederick Hooker, JJ., entered January 24, 1893, that he take- nothing by his action.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff, Engene S. Shepard, from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County, William Loehren and Frederick Hooker, JJ., entered January 24, 1893, that he take- nothing by his action. The defendant, Herbert M. Carpenter, of Minneapolis, on April 19, 1892, agreed with plaintiff that he would enter into a contract with him whereby Shepard should agree to cut into logs, haul and deliver at the boom or other place of delivery to be in and by said contract agreed upon, all pine timber upon certain lands belonging to Carpenter in Townships 59 and 60, Eange 26, in Itasca County,…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
A contract between two persons, upon a valid consideration, that they will, at some specified time in the future, at the election of one of them, enter into a particular contract, specifying its terms, is undoubtedly binding, and upon a breach thereof the party having the election or option may recover as damages what such particular contract, to be entered into, would have been worth to him, if made. But an agreement that they will in *156the future mal£e such contract as they may then agree upon amounts-, to nothing. An agreement to enter into negotiations, and agree upon the terms of a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Peterson v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
3Cited by31 opinions
- Steen v. RustadMontana Supreme Court · 1957
- Radford v. McNenyTexas Supreme Court · 1937
- Dillingham v. DahlgrenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lumber Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1926
- Baker v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1947
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.