Seitz v. Michel
Citation | 181 N.W. 106,148 Minn. 474 |
Decision Date | 14 January 1921 |
Docket Number | No. 22088.,22088. |
Parties | SEITZ v. MICHEL et al. |
Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; James C. Michael, Judge.
Action by Ernest J. Seitz Against Clarence B. Michel and others. Judgment for defendant on demurrer, leave to amend was denied, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.H. E. Fryberger, of Minneapolis, and Butler, Mitchell & Doherty, of St. Paul, for appellant.
O. E. Holman, of St. Paul, for respondents.
The defendant demurred to the complaint on several grounds-one, that it did not state facts constituting a cause of action against any of the defendants. The demurrer was sustained on that ground. Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint. The motion was denied, and a judgment was entered, from which plaintiff appeals.
The complaint virtually repeats the allegations of the complaint in Seitz v. Michel, 181 N. W. 102, decided herewith, and then adds a new allegation charging defendants with having conspired to ‘freeze out’ the plaintiff from participation in the management of the corporations and to render his stock unsalable and valueless; that, pursuant to such conspiracy, they so influenced Theodore Michel as to cause him to become hostile to plaintiff and induced him to repudiate his contract and wrongfully divert the funds of the corporations in the manner set out in the complaint in the other action, to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $185,000, for which judgment was demanded. All the questions presented in this case are disposed of by what was said in Seitz v. Michel with the exception of the effect of the alleged conspiracy.
[2] It appears upon the face of the complaint that the contract pleaded was contrary to public policy, and therefore void. Defendants might take advantage of the fact by demurrer as well as by motion for judgment on the pleadings after answering.
One of the objects of the alleged conspiracy was to induce Theodore Michel to repudiate his contract with plaintiff. If the contract was void, it could not be enforced against Michel. Plaintiff could only rely on his voluntary performance of its terms. There can be no liability for the breach of an invalid contract, and, of course, one cannot be charged with liability for inducing another to refrain from doing that which he was not legally bound to do.
Another object of the conspiracy was to depreciate the value of plaintiff's stock by wrongfully diverting and wasting the funds of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A. (In re Petters Co., Inc.), Jointly Administered under BKY 08–45257
......v. Deloitte & Touche , 535 N.W.2d 612, 617 (Minn. 1995) ; citing Singer v. Allied Factors, Inc. , 216 Minn. 443, 13 N.W.2d 378 (1944) ; Seitz v. Michel , 148 Minn. 474, 181 N.W. 106 (1921). 24 See In re UnitedHealth Grp. Inc. S'holder Derivative Litig. , 754 N.W.2d 544, 550 (Minn. ......
-
State v. Steele County Board of Com'Rs, 28083.
......We have permitted the invalidity of contracts void for public policy, appearing on the face of the complaint, to be raised under a demurrer, Seitz v. Michel, 148 Minn. 474, 181 N. W. 106; Bjelland v. City of Mankato, 112 Minn. 24, 127 N. W. 397, 140 Am. St. Rep. 460; also when the contract was ......
-
Wessin v. Archives Corp.
...... and distinct from the injury to other persons in a similar situation as the plaintiff." 535 N.W.2d 612, 617 (Minn.1995) ("Northwest ") (citing Seitz v. Michel, 148 Minn. 474, 476, 181 N.W. 106, 106 (1921) ("Seitz II")). . In Skoglund v. Brady, this court first noted that "[a] ......
-
State ex rel. Clinton Falls Nursery Co. v. Steele Cnty. Bd. of Com'rs, 28083.
......We have permitted the invalidity of contracts void for public policy, appearing on the face of the complaint, to be raised under a demurrer, Seitz v. Michel, 148 Minn. 474, 181 N. W. 106;Bjelland v. City of Mankato, 112 Minn. 24, 127 N. W. 397,140 Am. St. Rep. 460; also when the contract was ......