Cowley v. Davidson

10 Minn. 392
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided July 15, 1865·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

By the Court

Beret, J.

— The complaint in this action sets out a contract between the parties, and avers a breach thereof. The demurrer admitting the truth of the complaint, the respondent is entitled to nominal damages at any rate. Sedg. on Dam., (47); 3 Par. Con., 217, 218; 2 Gr. Ev., Sec. 254. The complaint therefore contained facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and so the demurrer was properly overruled. If the allegation of the complaint in which the respondent seeks to lay down the rule by which his special damages are to be estimated, are insufficient or irrelevant, the defect cannot be reached by demurrer 'so long as other parts of the complaint contain a sufficient statement of a cause of action.

Whether the demurrer was well taken is the only question before us, and we therefore forbear to express any opinion upon the correct standard of damages, a matter to which the demurrer does not extend.

The order overruling the demurrer is affirmed and the action remanded.

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

Cowley v. Davidson, 10 Minn. 392 (Mich. 1865).

10 Minn. 392 (Cowley v. Davidson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gabriel v. Kildare Elevator Co.
1907 OK 35 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)
Moody v. Peirano
84 P. 783 (California Supreme Court, 1906)
Cline v. Tampa Water Works Co.
46 Fla. 459 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1903)
Kent v. Halliday Brothers
49 A. 700 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1901)
Hudson v. Archer
55 N.W. 1099 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1893)
Sunnyside Land Co. v. Willamette Bridge Railway Co.
26 P. 835 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1891)