Minnesota Supreme Court, 1895

Sexton v. Steele

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 25, 1895 · Collins

60 Minn. 336; 62 N.W. 392; 1895 Minn. LEXIS 217 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Rea, Hubachek & Healy, for appellant., Koon, Whelan & Bennett, 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 1934, 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.

Schmidt v. Agricultural Ins. Co. (Minn. 1934)
Schmidt v. Agricultural Insurance (Minn. 1934)

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

COLLINS, J.

At the close of the proofs in this case, counsel agreed that it might be dismissed as to all of the defendants, except Wait and respondent Steele. This having been done, counsel for the person last named moved that as to him it also be dismissed on the ground that a cause of action had not been shown, and the motion was granted. We are clearly of the opinion that the evidence should have been submitted to the jury. In order for plaintiff to recover against Steele, it was not necessary for him to prove the partnership alleged in the complaint, or any partnership whatsoever. If he established a cause of action against one or more of the defendants, he was entitled to a verdict. G. S. 1894, § 5412; Miles v. Wann, 27 Minn. 56, 6 N. W. 417; Keigher v. Dowlan, 47 Minn. 574, 50 N. W. 823. There was evidence from which the jury might have concluded that Wait and Steele were actually copartners in the hotel business; and there was also evidence from which the jury might have found that Steele was the real proprietor of the hotel, and Wait in his service as a manager, when plaintiff fur*337nished the supplies. In either case plaintiff could recover as against Steele. A statement or synopsis of the testimony on which we base our conclusion seems unnecessary.

Order reversed.

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