Minnesota Supreme Court, 1889

Adams v. Eidam

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 19, 1889

42 Minn. 53; 43 N.W. 690; 1889 Minn. LEXIS 185 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Thomas Canty, for appellant., F. D. Culver, 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 1996, 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.

Warrick v. Graffiti, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1996)
Merchants' & Bankers' Fire Underwriters v. Parker (Tex. App. 1916)
Grogan v. Travelers' Insurance (Colo. App. 1914)
Grogan v. Travelers' Insurance (Colo. App. 1914)
Sinclair v. Fitzpatrick (Minn. 1914)

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. 1

The only question deserving particular consideration is whether the findings of the court are to be deemed as em*54bracing the fact that the defendant accepted the policies of insurance, and thus became liable to pay the premiums. The finding of the court is to'the effect that the policies, which, upon the expiration of a former insurance, the plaintiffs sent to the defendant, were received by him, and retained without objection or offer to return during the whole period of one year, specified in the policies as the period covered by the insurance. While this is not a commendable manner of stating findings of fact, we deem the necessary import to be that the defendant accepted the policies. He was therefore liable to pay the premiums. It is wholly immaterial that the defendant’s name was misspelled in the policies, reading, “E. H. Eidman,” instead of “E. H. Eidam.” That did not invalidate the policies. Such a mistake might have been corrected by reformation, if that were necessary.

Judgment affirmed.

Collins, J., did not sit in this case.

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