Minnesota Supreme Court, 1887

Scone v. Amos

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 27, 1887 · Gileillan

38 Minn. 79; 35 N.W. 575; 1887 Minn. LEXIS 323 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Thos. J. Leftwich, for appellant., J. D. Springer, 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 1938, 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

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Lokan v. Roberts (Or. 1974)
O'Hara v. Crawhall (Minn. 1938)
Glencoe Ditching Co. v. Martin (Minn. 1921)
Munn v. Mid-Continent Motor Securities Co. (Okla. 1927)

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.

The complaint alleges that defendant hired and ■employed plaintiff to remove a certain building, and' agreed to pay him therefor, when done, the sum of $35, and that plaintiff did the work, and it demands judgment for the $35. The answer is a general ■denial. On the trial the defendant was allowed to give evidence, ■against plaintiff’s objection that it was irrelevant, that he employed plaintiff for and as the agent of the Minneapolis & Pacific Railroad 'Company to remove the building for it, and that plaintiff knew this *80at the time of hiring. This was admissible under the answer, for if the fact was as defendant so endeavored to prove, then defendant did not make the contract alleged in the complaint as a party nor become bound. The contract was not his, but that of the railroad company, and he did not agree that he would pay for the work. The1 evidence was a denial, in effect, of the allegations in the complaint that defendant hired and employed plaintiff, and agreed to pay him. The evidence was such as to justify the finding that the contract of hiring was on behalf of the railroad company, and not by defendant, in his own behalf.

Order affirmed.

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