Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1897

Hausman v. Mulheran

Hausman v. Mulheran
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 26, 1897 · Mitchell
68 Minn. 48; 70 N.W. 866; 1897 Minn. LEXIS 338 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Geist & Eggers, for appellant., J. T. Hutchinson, 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 1907, 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

Hausman v. Mulheran

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

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 was no inconsistency between the admission in the answer that there was due from defendant to plaintiff a certain sum for rent, and the counterclaim for a larger sum for repairs on the building made by defendant under plaintiff’s agreement to pay and reimburse him therefor.

2. The allegations of the answer are that the agreement was that defendant should make repairs “where repairs should and might become necessary”; that, “in pursuance of said agreement,” the defendant made certain repairs, and expended in so doing a specified amount. The point was made on the trial that the counterclaim in the answer did not state a cause of action, because it did not allege that the repairs were necessary. As against an objection raised for *49the first time on the trial, we think the answer was properly held good.

3. There was no error in permitting the defendant to testify what he paid out for the repairs, accompanied by his testimony that those prices were fair and reasonable.

4. Whatever may be thought as to the preponderance of evidence, it was sufficient to justify the verdict.

Order affirmed.

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