Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 Minn. 267

Albee v. Hayden

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided September 25, 1878

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1878-09-25

The plaintiffs in this case are the widow and heirs-at-law of George C. Albee, deceased, and also Edward P. Mills and William H. Houlton, and they brought this action in the district court for Sherburne county, alleging that theretofore the present defendant brought suit in the same court against the present plaintiffs, (except Houlton,) to recover damages for injuries to real estate resulting from the erection and maintenance of a certain mill-dam by the defendants in that…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-09-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1977

4 state decisions

2018781880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cornell, J.

¶1This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the decision and order of the court before whom the action was tried without a jury, containing a special finding •of facts, together with the conclusions of law therefrom. There is no ease containing any statement of evidence, and hence no question can arise concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings.

¶2The conclusions of law are clearly justified by the findings of fact, and the judgment is in accordance therewith. Whether, under the general authority belonging to an attorney of record •of a party to an action to act for his client in reference to the matters in controversy therein, it was competent in this instance for Kerr & Collins, as such attorneys, to make and enter into the stipulation mentioned in the findings, and to bind their client, Hayden, to the agreement therein contained, need not be considered, for, upon the findings, based as it must be assumed upon sufficient competent evidence, it expressly appears that said stipulation and agreement were made, .signed and entered into on the part of said Hayden with full knowledge on his part of their contents and purport; that he was present with his said attorneys at the time said agreement and stipulation were made, and had full knowledge of .and directed the terms of the settlement, which, as stated in the stipulation, were expressly agreed upon and expressly consented to by him at the time; and that he then and there *272expressly authorized and directed his said attorneys, Kerr &- Collins, to make and sign the same for and on his behalf, which they then did, pursuant to such their said special authority- and instructions, and in his presence. Under these circumstances, the defendant was bound by the stipulation and its provisions. The agreement “to permit the maintenance of the dam at the height” therein specified included and gave-the right of flowage upon Hayden’s land, to the extent necessarily occasioned by its maintenance at that height.

¶3The finding that “plaintiffs had duly performed all the conditions precedent on their part, agreed by them in their said agreement and stipulation to be done and performed,” fully disposes of the last point made by defendant in reference to ■ the failure of the plaintiffs in this regard.

¶4According to our construction of the written stipulation, Hayden, upon the payment of the $600, undertook to acknowledge full satisfaction of the verdict in the action then pending on appeal in the supreme court, or any judgment rendered thereon, without costs to the defendants in said action.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/25/minn/267 · .json · Public domain