Burns v. Jordan

44 N.W. 523, 43 Minn. 25, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 100
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided February 18, 1890·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

44 N.W. 523 (Burns v. Jordan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clement v. Ecolab, Inc.
341 F. Supp. 3d 1205 (D. Oregon, 2018)
Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann
808 N.W.2d 828 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2011)
Smith v. Altier
238 N.W. 479 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1931)