Legal Opinion

Peet v. the Roth Hotel Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 9, 1934No. 29,587PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STONE, Justice.

After an adverse verdict, defendant moved in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding or a new trial. That motion, denied, defendant appeals.

The record is the story of a ring. Defendant operates the St. Paul Hotel in St. Paul. Mr. Ferdinand Hotz is a manufacturing jeweler. For 20 years or more he has visited St. Paul periodically on business, making his local headquarters at the St. Paul Hotel. He has long been one of its regular patrons, personally known to the management. Plaintiff’s engagement ring, a platinum piece set Avith a large cabochon sapphire surrounded by…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Rustad v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
  2. Trustees v. . Banking Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  3. Trustees of Elon College v. Elon Banking & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  4. United States v. Atlantic Coast Line R.District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1913
  5. Brown v. KohoutSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State v. BolsingerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
  2. American Enka Company, in No. 82-1080 v. Wicaco MacHine Corp. American Enka Company v. Wicaco MacHine Corp., in No. 82-1109Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
  3. Garbark v. NewmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Holt v. SwensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  5. Roberge v. Cambridge Cooperative Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API