Minnesota Supreme Court, 1889

Sterling v. Bock

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 11, 1889 · Mitchell

40 Minn. 11; 41 N.W. 236; 1889 Minn. LEXIS 4 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Smith dc Reed, for appellant., 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 1915, 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

2 later published cases cite this decision.

National Citizens Bank v. McKinley (Minn. 1915)
Edwards v. Dillon (Ill. 1893)

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

Mitchell, J.1

There are no merits in this appeal. The evidence showed that the defendants were partners under the style of “The Pence Opera House Company.” The contract, Exhibit A, was within the scope of the partnership business, and hence its execution on behalf of the firm within the authority of any of the partners. It shows on its face that it was intended to be the contract of the firm. It was executed in person by two of the partners, and after its execution it was, with full knowledge of its existence, ratified by all the partners by accepting plaintiff’s services performed under it. Under such circumstances, it is the contract of the firm, and binding on all the partners, regardless of the precise form of its execution. 1 Lindl. Partn. 178; Whitney v. Wyman, 101 U. S. 392.

*13Not being required to be under seal, the seals attached to the names of Bock and plaintiff may be rejected as surplusage, and the instrument treated as the parol contract of the firm. Gibson v. Warden, 14 Wall. 244; Milton v. Mosher, 7 Met. 244. Or, if it be treated as a sealed instrument, having, after its execution, been'ratified by all the partners, it becomes the deed of the firm, the same as if executed by all of them under seal. Story, Partn. § 122. There was therefore no error in admitting the contract in evidence.

Order affirmed.

Dickinson and Vanderburgh, JJ., being absent in canvassing the vote for state officers, took no part in this case.

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