Minnesota Supreme Court, 1887

McEvoy v. Bock

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 7, 1887 · Gileillan

37 Minn. 402; 34 N.W. 740; 1887 Minn. LEXIS 150 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Merrick é Merrick, for appellants., Weed Munro, 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 1939, 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

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Mullany v. Firemen's Insurance Co. (Minn. 1939)
Garbush v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America (Minn. 1929)
Fox v. Fox (Minn. 1923)
Carmean v. North American Transportation & Trading Co. (Wash. 1907)
Frederick v. City of Columbus (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division 1895)

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

Gileillan, C. J.

Plaintiff sues defendants as copartners upon a written contract of employment, by which the partnership employed plaintiff as an actress for a specified time, at a specified salary per week, payable at the end of each week. The contract was made by plaintiff by the name of Marie Wellesley, and the suit was brought in the name of Marie Wellesley Sterling, while her full legal name *403was Marie Wellesley Sterling McEvoy; Marie Wellesley being wbat is called ber stage name, and Marie Wellesley Sterling her business name, or the name by which for 12 years (as she testified) she transacted her business. The court below, against defendants’ objection, permitted the record to be corrected by inserting plaintiff’s full legal name. This was within the discretion of the court, and, as there was no suggestion that defendants had been misled, it will not be reviewed.

On the trial, the court allowed plaintiff to prove by oral testimony the partnership, and who composed it, although there were written articles of copartnership. This was correct. The fact of a copart-nership, and who compose it, may, certainly in behalf of a third person, be proved by parol, even if there be written articles, though the terms of it cannot be so proved. With the terms of the articles plaintiff had no concern, — they were not in question in the case; so that there was no issue to which they were relevant, and when offered by defendants they were properly excluded.

Plaintiff had sued and recovered for one week’s salary prior to the time claimed for in this action. The salary being payable weekly, she could at any time sue for all due her at the time of commencing suit, without barring her right to afterwards sue for and recover salary subsequently becoming due.

We see nothing in any of the assignments of error.

Orders affirmed.

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