Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 20 N.W. 129.

25 citing documents.

Carlson v. Fredsall 37 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1949
Carlson v. Fredsall 37 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1949
In Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co. 32 Minn. 167 , , we held that an amended or superseded pleading is admissible as an admission against the party who interposed it if *469 verified by him, but that before an unverified pleading could be admitted it must be shown that the party authorized or directed the insertion of the allegations in the pleading.
Buehman v. Smelker 68 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1937
Hork v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 258 N.W. 576 Minn. 1935
Hork v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 258 N.W. 576 Minn. 1935
Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co. 32 Minn. 167 , .
Carpenter v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. 211 N.W. 463 Minn. 1926
Carpenter v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. 211 N.W. 463 Minn. 1926
Siebert v. Leonard, 21 Minn. 442 ; Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co. 32 Minn. 167 , .
Neilsen v. Union State Bank of Minneapolis 205 N.W. 453 Minn. 1925
Neilsen v. Union State Bank of Minneapolis 205 N.W. 453 Minn. 1925
Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co. 32 Minn. 167 , ; Reeves & Co. v. *28 Cress, 80 Minn. 466 , ; Baxter v. Brandenburg, 137 Minn. 259 , .
Ryan v. Simms 179 N.W. 683 Minn. 1920
Ryan v. Simms 179 N.W. 683 Minn. 1920
Siebert v. Leonard, 21 Minn. 442 ; Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co. 32 Minn. 167 , ; Humphrey v. Monida & U. S. Co. 115 Minn. 18 , ; 2 Wigmore, Ev.
Baxter v. Brandenburg 163 N.W. 516 Minn. 1917
Baxter v. Brandenburg 163 N.W. 516 Minn. 1917
Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co. 32 Minn. 167 , ; Reeves & Co. v. Cress, 80 Minn. 466 , ; Stearns v. Kennedy, 94 Minn. 439, 444
Anderson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 148 N.W. 462 Minn. 1914
Anderson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 148 N.W. 462 Minn. 1914
And, as said by Mr. Justice Mitchell in Vogel v. D; M. Osborne & Co. 32 Minn. 167, 169 , , 130: “The tendency of courts now is to limit the admissibility of evidence of admissions of 'agents against principals, and keep it within the' strict limits of the rules as settled by the cases.
Salo v. Duluth & Iron Range Railroad 140 N.W. 188 Minn. 1913
Salo v. Duluth & Iron Range Railroad 140 N.W. 188 Minn. 1913
Tbe reasons of tbe rule are so fully stated by Mr. Justice Mitchell in Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co. 32 Minn. 167 , , that further comment, so far as tbe rule is concerned, is unnecessary.
Stearns v. Kennedy 103 N.W. 212 Minn. 1905
Stearns v. Kennedy 103 N.W. 212 Minn. 1905
Vogel v. D. M. Osborn & Co., 32 Minn. 167 , ; Rich v. City of Minneapolis, 40 Minn. 82 , .
Burns v. Maltby 45 N.W. 3 Minn. 1890
Burns v. Maltby 45 N.W. 3 Minn. 1890
Siebert v. Leonard, 21 Minn. 442 ; Vogel v. Osborne, 32 Minn. 167 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
Rich v. City of Minneapolis 41 N.W. 455 Minn. 1889
Rich v. City of Minneapolis 41 N.W. 455 Minn. 1889
Vogel v. Osborne, 32 Minn. 167 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co. 26 N.W. 453 Minn. 1886
Vogel v. D. M. Osborne & Co. 26 N.W. 453 Minn. 1886
Berry, J. After a careful reading of the settled case before us, we adopt as appropriate to this appeal the substance of a conclusion arrived at upon the former appeal, ( 32 Minn. 167 ,) viz., that there was evidence sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that Earl & *456 Hanson were defendant’s agents to sell the Osborne machines, with authority to give both of the warranties set forth in the complaint, and to employ canvassers to solicit orders and make sales; and that Kinney made this