Minnesota Supreme Court, 1884

Olson v. Hurley

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 22, 1884 · Berry

33 Minn. 39; 21 N.W. 842; 1884 Minn. LEXIS 69 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

J. G. McClure, for appellant., Chas. Parks, 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 1898, 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

1 later published case cites this decision.

Langworthy v. Garding (Minn. 1898)

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

Berry, J.

This was an action before a justice of the peace, to recover an unpaid balance of $14.70, claimed to be due for money lent and intoxicating liquor sold by plaintiff to defendant. The justice rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, whereupon defendant appealed to the district court upon questions of law. *40The return containing all the evidence, and showing no formal proof made by plaintiff of license to sell intoxicating liquor, the district court, upon the authority of Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 197, (278,) ruled that he could not recover for the liquors furnished, and reversed the judgment of the justice accordingly. In so doing the court must have overlooked the fact that the complaint, as amended, alleged that the plaintiff was duly licensed to sell intoxicating liquor at the time of the sales to defendant, and that this allegation of the complaint is not denied in the answer, (so far as the record shows,) and therefore stands admitted. As to the question whether the evidence showed defendant to be an habitual drunkard, we find no reason to differ from the court below.

The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the judgment of the justice affirmed, without remittitur.

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