Sullivan Lumber Co. v. Thorn
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 1915, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Sullivan Lumber Co. v. Thorn (Minn. 1915)
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
Plaintiff brought action on a promissory note. Defendant admitted the note, but counterclaimed the value of services alleged to have been rendered to plaintiff. She recovered a verdict of $330.50. The only question in the case is, does the evidence sustain this verdict. We have examined the evidence in this case with care. A majority of the court are of the opinion that due weight was not given to the presumption arising from the giving of the note (Beneke v. Beneke, 119 Minn. 441, 138 N. W. 689), and that the verdict is not justified by the evidence, and that a new trial should be granted.
Order reversed and new trial granted.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.