Pioneer Electric Co. v. McCurdy
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Chisago county to recover $1,598.91 for goods sold and delivered. The amended answer set up counterclaims for $6,400.09. The case was tried before Searles, J., who when defendant rested denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim and at the close of the testimony its motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for $2,558.23 less $1,662.23 in favor of defendant.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Chisago county to recover $1,598.91 for goods sold and delivered. The amended answer set up counterclaims for $6,400.09. The case was tried before Searles, J., who when defendant rested denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim and at the close of the testimony its motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for $2,558.23 less $1,662.23 in favor of defendant. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, C. J.
Action to recover for goods sold and delivered in which defendant interposed a counterclaim for damages resulting to him from an alleged breach of warranty on the .sale of other goods and property by plaintiff to defendant. Defendant had a verdict and plaintiff appealed from an order denying its motion for judgment or a new trial.
There is no dispute as to plaintiff’s claim for goods sold to defendant, the allegations of the complaint in that respect being- admitted by the answer. The issues in litigation and involved on the appeal center around the alleged counterclaim of defendant.
It appears…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- E. P. Moorhead v. Minneapolis Seed Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Melby v. D. M. Osborne & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- McCormick v. KellySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Ehrmanntraut v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Gaar, Scott & Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Malooly v. York Heating & Ventilating Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1935
- Hawkins v. McGeeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929
- Roberts v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1930
- Robie v. HoldahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Farmer v. CassityCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.