Stees v. Leonard
Minnesota Supreme Court
20 Minn. 494, 20 Gil. 448 (1874)
- Written by Christine Hilgeman, JD
Facts
Stees (plaintiff) entered into a contract with Leonard (Leonard) (defendant) for the construction of a three-story building on Stees' lot. The contract contained plans and specifications for the building to be erected, including details regarding the thickness of the foundation walls and the size and location of the footings. On the first two attempts to construct the building, the building collapsed after reaching the height of three stories. After the second collapse, Leonard refused to do any further work under the contract. Stees commenced an action against Leonard to recover damages resulting from Leonard's failure to complete the building. Stees alleged that the collapse was due to Leoanard's negligent work and the poor quality of the materials used. Leonard alleged that the collapse was caused by the soil. The soil was proved to be quicksand that was unable to sustain the weight of the building and in order for the building to be constructed, the land would have to be drained. However, the trial court barred, as inadmissible parol evidence, Leonard’s claim that Stees agreed to drain the land and that Stees’ failure to do so caused the collapse. Without this evidence, the jury returned a verdict for Stees. The trial court denied Leonard's motion for a new trial and Leonard appealed to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Young, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.