McLeod v. Capehart
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 1894, 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.
- In re Shea (Minn. 1894)
- McLeod v. Capehart (Minn. 1892)
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
The first assignment of error is that the verdict was not justified by the evidence; the second — directed towards a ruling of the trial court, which was clearly correct — we shall not discuss, because no exception was taken to it; and the third, or last, assignment is superfluous. ■
The real controversy was as to the making of a verbal agreement by and between.the parties, which, if made, extended or continued a written contract, then being acted upon and about to expire, for a longer period of time. There was testimony which would have sustained a verdict for either party, and the conclusion of the jury in plaintiff’s favor should have ended the litigation.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.