Legal Opinion

Barber v. Gross

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1952No. File 9242PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLeedom, J.

Plaintiff, the respondent here, brought this action to recover on a $1,000 promissory note given him by defendant as part payment on the price of a spraying machine used for spraying or dipping livestock. In his answer defendant, who brought this appeal, alleged that he was only 18 years old at the time of making the note and that he had “disaffirmed” the contract “by tendering and offering to return the said ‘Spray Dip’ and he counterclaimed for the $400 paid on the price at the time of the purchase. It is our opinion that it was error for the circuit court to direct a verdict for the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Murdock v. Fisher Finance CorporationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  2. Lebaron v. Berryessa Cattle Co.California Court of Appeal · 1926
  3. Star v. WatkinsNebraska Supreme Court · 1907

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Friedhoff v. EngbergSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Halbman v. LemkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Barber v. GrossSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API