Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

37 Minn. 402

McEvoy v. Bock

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 7, 1887

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1887-11-07

The plaintiff brought this action in the municipal court of Minneapolis, to recover for services rendered the defendants under a written contract. The action was, tried without a jury, and judgment directed for the plaintiff. Among other defences the defendants pleaded as a bar to this action a former recovery by the plaintiff upon the same contract.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-11-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1939

4 state decisions

20188718901900191019201930decided

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 →

Gileillan, C. J.

¶1Plaintiff sues defendants as copartners upon a written contract of employment, by which the partnership employed plaintiff as an actress for a specified time, at a specified salary per week, payable at the end of each week. The contract was made by plaintiff by the name of Marie Wellesley, and the suit was brought in the name of Marie Wellesley Sterling, while her full legal name *403was Marie Wellesley Sterling McEvoy; Marie Wellesley being wbat is called ber stage name, and Marie Wellesley Sterling her business name, or the name by which for 12 years (as she testified) she transacted her business. The court below, against defendants’ objection, permitted the record to be corrected by inserting plaintiff’s full legal name. This was within the discretion of the court, and, as there was no suggestion that defendants had been misled, it will not be reviewed.

¶2On the trial, the court allowed plaintiff to prove by oral testimony the partnership, and who composed it, although there were written articles of copartnership. This was correct. The fact of a copart-nership, and who compose it, may, certainly in behalf of a third person, be proved by parol, even if there be written articles, though the terms of it cannot be so proved. With the terms of the articles plaintiff had no concern, — they were not in question in the case; so that there was no issue to which they were relevant, and when offered by defendants they were properly excluded.

¶3Plaintiff had sued and recovered for one week’s salary prior to the time claimed for in this action. The salary being payable weekly, she could at any time sue for all due her at the time of commencing suit, without barring her right to afterwards sue for and recover salary subsequently becoming due.

¶4We see nothing in any of the assignments of error.

¶5Orders affirmed.

/37/minn/402 · .json · Public domain