Legal Opinion

Hoover v. Perkins Windmill & Axe Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 2, 1889PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Hicks, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.

In January, 1886, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written contract, by the terms of which the plaintiff became the agent of the defendant for the sale of windmills in the state of Minnesota. It is unnecessary to state with particularity all the provisions of the contract. It may be said generally, however, *144.that the mills were to be shipped to the plaintiff at an agreed schedule price. He was to bear all the expense incident to keeping and. selling them, and to remit the proceeds of all sales to the defendant, himself guarantying the payment of all notes taken upon sales. The…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Clausen & Sons, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co., a Minnesota CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1968
  2. McGinnis Piano and Organ Company v. Yamaha International CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1973
  3. Montgomery Iron Works v. DormanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API