W. H. Ferrell & Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co.
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 1912, 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.
- Zetterberg v. Great Northern Railway Co. (Minn. 1912)
- W. H. Ferrell & Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co. (Minn. 1912)
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 plaintiff by its complaint shows: An order given the defendant company for cars in which to ship certain commodities. A specific promise and agreement of the defendant to furnish a certain number of cars at the specified time and place. A failure on the part of the defendant to furnish the cars, and resulting damages. The defendant, by its demurrer, challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, because it does not show a written demand for cars in compliance with chapter 23, p. 25, Laws 1907, the so-called “Reciprocal Demurrage Law.” The complaint sets up a common-law contract to furnish ears, and therefore states a cause of action, independent of any statutory obligations imposed by the act referred to. This case, as made by the complaint, is not distinguishable from, and is ruled by, the decided case of Pope v. Wisconsin Central Ry. Co., 112 Minn. 112, 127 N. W. 436. The order overruling the demurrer was properly made, and is affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.