Beatty v. Ambs
Supreme Court of Minnesota
In the title of this cause the plaintiffs are mentioned as “ partners, doing business under the firm name and style of Beatty & Stedman,” and the defendants as “late partners, under the firm name and style of Ambs & Wittman.” There are no allegations of partnership, either of the plaintiffs or the defendants.
Read the full summary
In the title of this cause the plaintiffs are mentioned as “ partners, doing business under the firm name and style of Beatty & Stedman,” and the defendants as “late partners, under the firm name and style of Ambs & Wittman.” There are no allegations of partnership, either of the plaintiffs or the defendants. The complaint sets out a cause of action for goods, etc., sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants, to the amount of' $315 55. The defendants answer separately. Ambs denies the complaint, and sets up certain special matters of defense, and alleges that certain goods were…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Gowrt
Berry, J.
The depositions offered on the trial below, were properly excluded. They were attempted to be taken under the old rules found in 1 Minn. Rep. Rule 13 required that the commissioner should “indorse upon the commission the time or times, and place of executing it.” The indorsement upon the interrogatories which were attached to the commission, and might be regarded as forming a part *334thereof, (Hurd v. Pendrigh, 2 Hill, 502,) did not contain sufficient -to satisfy the rule. The final certificate, (as it is called in the bill of exceptions,) which was a paper annexed to the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Veazie v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Local Government Assistance Corp. v. Sales Tax Asset Receivable Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Harrington v. HighamNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Fetz v. C. S. Clark & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1862
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hogendobler v. LyonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873