Minnesota Supreme Court, 1872

Hawley v. Wilkinson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 15, 1872 · Berry

18 Minn. 525 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Wilder & Williston, for Appellant., Phelps & Taber, for Respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1875, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Paget v. Cordes (Or. 1929)
Johnson v. Homestead-Iron Dyke Mines Co. (Or. 1920)
Harvey v. Southern Pac. Co. (Or. 1905)
Purcell v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance (N.D. 1895)
Manders v. Craft (Colo. App. 1893)
Manders v. Craft (Colo. App. 1893)
Plummer v. Mold (Minn. 1875)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

Berry, J.

This action was originally insti*526tuted before a justice of the peace, by whom judgment’ was rendered for the plaintiff for $45.21. Defendant appealed to the district court, and after a jury was empanneled and sworn, but before any evidence was offered, he moved, upon a claim that the complaint contained a double statement of plaintiff’s alleged cause of action, that plaintiff be compelled to elect upon which statement he would proceed. The court refusing ■ to grant this motion as made, defendant further moved to strike out what he conceived to be the second statement of plaintiff’s cause of action, and the second motion was also denied. The pleadings in the case (complaint and answer,) were those upon which the action was tried before the justice, and no objection appears to have been made to them until as above mentioned. Without stopping to inquire whether these objections were well founded or not, it is enough to say that the motions were, both addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and considering the times at which they were made, we cannot say that the discretion appealed to was in any sense abused. Gen. Stat., ch. 66-90.

Upon the the trial the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $47.59. Defendant insists that this verdict is not justified by the evidence;

The effect of the evidence has been passed upon by the justice, by the jury, and by the judge below on his denial of the motion for a new trial.

We are not inclined to disturb the result in which all these concur, since upon a careful perusal of the- case settled, we find some testimony having a reasonable tendency to show, that the goods, to recover the price of which this action was brought, were originally furnished to Little upon defendant’s credit.

There is also some testimony going to show, that defendant. upon the settlement between himself and Little, charged Little *527for the amount of plaintiff’s claim, and assumed to pay the same. This would make him liable to plaintiff within the principle of Sanders vs. Clason, (13 Minn 379,) and the instruct tion given to the jury of which defendant complains, is warranted by that case.

Order refusing a new trial affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.