Hanchett v. Jordan

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Hanchett v. Jordan

45 N.W. 617, 43 Minn. 149, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 132

DecidedApril 11, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 45 N.W. 617 (Hanchett 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

Hanchett v. Jordan, 45 N.W. 617, 43 Minn. 149, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 132 (Mich. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

The instruction to the jury upon which the assignments of error are based is conceded to be correct as a proposition of law, the only objection to it being that, as there was no evidence in the case to which it could be applicable, it might mislead the jury. There was, however, evidence in the testimony of the plaintiff Stevens from which the jury might have found that the delivery of the paper on Thursday, testified to by him, was not regarded by the parties as a final delivery, made with intent that the paper should go into effect by reason of it, but that the consummation of the delivery was postponed to abide the result of the conference with the plaintiff Hanchett, agreed to be had and in fact had on Sunday. This being the case, the instruction was proper.

Order affirmed.

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

The instruction to the jury upon which the assignments of error are based is conceded to be correct as a proposition of law, the only objection to it being that, as there was no evidence in the case to which it could be applicable, it might mislead the jury. There was, however, evidence in the testimony of the plaintiff Stevens from which the jury might have found that the delivery of the paper on Thursday, testified to by him, was not regarded by the parties as a final delivery, made with intent that the paper should go into effect by reason of it, but that the consummation of the delivery was postponed to abide the result of the conference with the plaintiff Hanchett, agreed to be had and in fact had on Sunday. This being the case, the instruction was proper.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 N.W. 617, 43 Minn. 149, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanchett-v-jordan-minn-1890.