Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Haack
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 1919, 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.
- Licensed Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Denton (Minn. 1919)
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
Action to recover for merchandise sold and delivered. The action was
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.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.