Ford v. Berg

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Ford v. Berg

82 N.W. 1118, 79 Minn. 464, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 826

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 22, 1900

DocketNos. 12,005-(178)

StatusPublished

This text of 82 N.W. 1118 (Ford v. Berg) 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

Ford v. Berg, 82 N.W. 1118, 79 Minn. 464, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 826 (Mich. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought in a justice court to recover the sum of $7.60 for goods, wares, a.nd merchandise alleged to have been sold and delivered to defendant by plaintiff. Defendant appeared in the justice court and filed an answer in which he impliedly admits the sale and delivery of the goods, and alleges as a defense that at the time of such sale he was at work as a farm hand for one Redland, and that the sale was made under an agreement with plaintiff whereby plaintiff agreed to hold said Redland for payment; that Redland deducted the amount thereof from defendant’s wages and is alone liable to plaintiff. The justice tried the case, found adversely to defendant on this defense, and rendered judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the sum of $5.60. Defendant appealed [465]*465to the district court, on questions of law alone, where the judgment was affirmed, and he again appeals to this court.

The judgment is affirmed. There are no questions of law, important or otherwise, of a nature to justify the appeal to this court.

The cause was set down for oral argument in this court in violation of the rules, and no statutory costs will be allowed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought in a justice court to recover the sum of $7.60 for goods, wares, a.nd merchandise alleged to have been sold and delivered to defendant by plaintiff. Defendant appeared in the justice court and filed an answer in which he impliedly admits the sale and delivery of the goods, and alleges as a defense that at the time of such sale he was at work as a farm hand for one Redland, and that the sale was made under an agreement with plaintiff whereby plaintiff agreed to hold said Redland for payment; that Redland deducted the amount thereof from defendant’s wages and is alone liable to plaintiff. The justice tried the case, found adversely to defendant on this defense, and rendered judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the sum of $5.60. Defendant appealed [465]*465to the district court, on questions of law alone, where the judgment was affirmed, and he again appeals to this court.

The judgment is affirmed. There are no questions of law, important or otherwise, of a nature to justify the appeal to this court.

The cause was set down for oral argument in this court in violation of the rules, and no statutory costs will be allowed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.W. 1118, 79 Minn. 464, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-berg-minn-1900.