McClay v. Gluck

42 N.W. 875, 41 Minn. 193, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 307
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided July 8, 1889·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Gileillan, C. J.

Action to recover a balance claimed to be due upon a contract for tbe erection of a building, and for extra work on the building. • Plaintiff had a verdict. The evidence was sufficient to justify it. It can hardly be said that any question of law is presented. Parties may by parol modify a written executory contract under seal, either by changing its terms or waiving its conditions, if they have acted under and executed it as so modified. That the parties to this contract agreed on the waivers and modifications claimed by plaintiff, and acted under and executed it accordingly, were questions for the jury, and the evidence justifies their finding.

Judgment affirmed.

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

McClay v. Gluck, 42 N.W. 875, 41 Minn. 193, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 307 (Mich. 1889).

42 N.W. 875 (McClay v. Gluck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McKinley v. Macbeth
129 N.W. 216 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1911)
Blake v. J. Neils Lumber Co.
127 N.W. 450 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1910)
Jones v. Longerbeam
119 N.W. 1000 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1909)
Youngberg v. Lamberton
97 N.W. 571 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1903)
Bowman v. Wright
91 N.W. 580 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1902)