Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Haack

Minnesota Supreme Court
Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Haack, 135 Minn. 126 (Minn. 1916)
160 N.W. 258; 1916 Minn. LEXIS 516
Dibell

Can I rely on this case?

Yes — no negative treatment found

Based on 1 citing opinion

Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.

Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Haack

Opinion of the Court

Dibell, C.

Action to recover for merchandise sold and delivered. The action was *127dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s testimony and judgment was entered. The defendant appeals from the judgment.

The complaint alleges that the defendant is an Illinois corporation. The defendant specifically denies it. There was no proof of incorpo-. ration. The sale and delivery of the merchandise is conceded. The action was dismissed because of lack of proof of thg incorporation of the plaintiff. The fact of corporate existence was not a material issue. It was not necessary to prove it. Finch, Van Slyck & McConville v. Le Sueur County Co-operative Co. 128 Minn. 73, 150 N. W. 226; Holden v. Great Western Ele. Co. 69 Minn. 527, 72 N. W. 805, 65 Am. St. 505. Whether the defendant’s denial was sufficient under G. S. 1913, § 7774 (E. L. 1905), § 4148, we need not consider.

Judgment reversed.

Reference

Full Case Name
MOORMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. JOHN M. HAACK
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published