McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Morlan
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Oarroll District Gourt. — Hon. Z. A. Ohuroh, Judge. Action upon a written contract for the purchase of a mowing machine. Defendant admits the signing of the contract and a tender of the machine, but avers that the contract was not delivered to plaintiff, and further pleaded that his signature to the instrument was obtained by fraud. On these issues the case wast tried to a jury, resulting iu a directed verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtDeemek, J.
Defendant offered evidence to the effect that he signed the order or contract for the machine, and gave it to an agent of plaintiff to hold until he found out about the price of another machine which had been offered him, and that this agent was to hold the order, and not send it to the plaintiff until he had heard from defendant again. He also testified that, after ascertaining the price of the other machine, he gave the agent no authority to deliver the contract, and that he never at any time told him to deliver it to the plaintiff. Some evidence wa's also introduced for the purpose of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Burke v. DulaneySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Benton v. . MartinNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Juilliard v. . ChaffeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Wilson v. PowersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Reynolds v. . RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Oakland Cemetery Ass'n of Lyons v. LakinsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Lavalleur v. HahnSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- Anthon State Bank v. BernardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
- Herron v. BrintonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
- J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.