Peet v. City of East Grand Forks
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Polk county by the assignee of a contract to recover $11,701.84 alleged to be due under the contract to pave the streets of the city of East Grand Forks.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Polk county by the assignee of a contract to recover $11,701.84 alleged to be due under the contract to pave the streets of the city of East Grand Forks. After the case was remanded by this court (101 Minn. 523) it was tried before Watts, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $11,432.93. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, and from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.
This case presents another phase of the litigation which has resulted from the attempt of the city of East Grand Forks to grade its public *427streets. Merchants’ Nat. Bank of St. Paul v. City of East Grand Forks, 94 Minn. 246, 102 N. W. 703; Peet v. City of East Grand Forks, 101 Minn. 518, 112 N. W. 1003; Peet v. City of East Grand Forks, 101 Minn. 523, 112 N. W. 1005; Thornton v. City of East Grand Forks, 106 Minn. 233, 118 N. W. 834.
In 1902 P. H. Thornton entered into a contract with the city of East Grand Eorks to grade, macadamize, and curb its streets. The contract covered five pieces of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Merchants National Bank v. City of East Grand ForksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Peet v. City of East Grand ForksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Newton v. Highland Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Peet v. City of East Grand ForksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Thornton v. City of East Grand ForksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. JatalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Ferguson v. ChristensenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1915