Case Name: H. P. CAMERON and Another v. H. P. CONRAD
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1910-04-22
Citations: 110 Minn. 531
Docket Number: Nos. 16,575—(44)
Parties: H. P. CAMERON and Another v. H. P. CONRAD.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 531–531

Head Matter:
H. P. CAMERON and Another v. H. P. CONRAD.
April 22, 1910.
Nos. 16,575—(44).
Sunday Labor.
[Contract -with defendant to pay for Sunday labor solely for bis accommodation. Sufficient evidence to sustain finding that the services performed were of the value of $29.28 and had not been paid for. Defendant's attempt to repudiate the contract is without merit, and the court -will not consider the legal questions suggested. Reporter.] - , ,
Action in justice court to recover $31.79, balance, due for labor and material furnished. The answer alleged payment in full. The reply alleged that defendant agreed to pay double because the work was done on Sunday., Prom the judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appealed to.the municipal court of St. Paul upon questions of law and fact. The case was heard before Hanft, J., who found in favor of plaintiffs. Prom the order denying defendant’s motion to amend-the. findings of fact and conclusions of law, he appealed.
Affirmed.
Albert C. Wandrei, for appellant.
Oscar F. Christensen, for respondents.
Reported in 125 N. W. 1022.
April, 1910, term calendar.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Appellant entered into a contract with respondents to pay for Sunday labor in getting the basement of a certain building in readiness to lay the floor for a bowling alley. The work was done on a Sunday, at appellant's request, and to comply with another contract with certain experts to put in the bowling alleys on Monday, the following day.
The evidence was sufficient to justify the trial court in finding that the services performed were of the value of $29.28, and had not been paid for. Appellant received the benefit of the work, and as it was performed on a Sunday purely.for his accommodation we do not deem his attempt to repudiate the contract of any merit, and the case is not of sufficient importance to call for a consideration of the legal questions suggested.
We find no error in the record.
Affirmed.