Burns v. Jordan

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Burns v. Jordan

44 N.W. 523, 43 Minn. 25, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 100

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 18, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 44 N.W. 523 (Burns v. Jordan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burns v. Jordan, 44 N.W. 523, 43 Minn. 25, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 100 (Mich. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Collins, J.

The answer herein, to which a general demurrer was interposed, admitted the execution and delivery of the note sued [26]*26upon, and then, by way of counterclaim, alleged a breach of a contract, between plaintiffs and defendants, for the sale and delivery to the latter of certain lumber, and for which, and upon no other consideration, they executed the note in question. The answer contains several averments as to the manner in which defendants were damaged, and the amount of their loss thereby, concerning which we are not required to express an opinion. The answer sufficiently alleges a breach of the contract, and upon that alone the defendants are entitled to nominal damages. Cowley v. Davidson, 10 Minn. 314, (392;) Wilson v. Clarke, 20 Minn. 318, (367.) The demurrer was properly overruled.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Collins, J.

The answer herein, to which a general demurrer was interposed, admitted the execution and delivery of the note sued [26]*26upon, and then, by way of counterclaim, alleged a breach of a contract, between plaintiffs and defendants, for the sale and delivery to the latter of certain lumber, and for which, and upon no other consideration, they executed the note in question. The answer contains several averments as to the manner in which defendants were damaged, and the amount of their loss thereby, concerning which we are not required to express an opinion. The answer sufficiently alleges a breach of the contract, and upon that alone the defendants are entitled to nominal damages. Cowley v. Davidson, 10 Minn. 314, (392;) Wilson v. Clarke, 20 Minn. 318, (367.) The demurrer was properly overruled.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 N.W. 523, 43 Minn. 25, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-jordan-minn-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack