TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Walsh v. St. Paul Trust Co.

R. A. Walsh v. St. Paul Trust Company, Administrator

Walsh v. St. Paul Trust Co., 38 N.W. 631 (Minn. 1888)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 22, 1888
Citations
38 N.W. 63139 Minn. 231888 Minn. LEXIS 12
Headnotes
Agency — Contract — Insufficient Evidence. — Proof merely that one is “acting” for another is not proof of authority. Case considered insufficient to prove an alleged contract.
Summary
Plaintiff appealed to the district court for Bamsey county from an order of tbe probate court disallowing bis claim against the estate of W. A. Culbertson, deceased. At the trial, before Brill, J., the action was dismissed, on defendant’s motion, at the close of plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court.

The appellant’s claim against the estate is founded upon a contract alleged to have been made by him with the deceased verbally. The making of any contract was put in issue, and upon the trial the appellant failed to prove it, so as to entitle him to recover upon it. From the offer of proof, by the testimony of Mr. Kerr, and from the admission made in respect to the proposed testimony, it only appears that Mr. Kerr was familiar with the contract, had heard it stated by the parties, and knew exactly what it was. There was no offer and no proof as to what that contract was, — what were its terms and conditions. The offer to show that Mr. Warner was “acting for the administrator” of the estate at the time when certain papers belonging to the estate were delivered to him was not equivalent to showing that he had any authority to so act, or to contract in behalf of the estate. This is a sufficient reason, without considering others, why the proposed testimony of Mr. Warner, relating to such papers, could not affect this case.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1906: 11935: 119062026peak 1906 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Britt v. Gordon108 N.W. 319 (Iowa 1906)
  2. Carter v. Miller260 N.W. 393 (Neb. 1935)

Most recent

  1. Carter v. Miller260 N.W. 393 (Neb. 1935)
  2. Britt v. Gordon108 N.W. 319 (Iowa 1906)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list