J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Vennum
Supreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota
Appeal from the district court of Stutsman county. Defendant allowed judgment in a prior action on one of the series of notes given for this machine, to be taken by default, and tihis renders the defense of breach of warranty in this action res acljudicata. Wells on Res. Ad., 308, §§402, 406; Gardner v. Buckbee, 3 Cow. 120; Young v. Black, 7 Crauch, 565-7; Marsh v. Pier, 4 Rawle.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court of Stutsman county. Defendant allowed judgment in a prior action on one of the series of notes given for this machine, to be taken by default, and tihis renders the defense of breach of warranty in this action res acljudicata. Wells on Res. Ad., 308, §§402, 406; Gardner v. Buckbee, 3 Cow. 120; Young v. Black, 7 Crauch, 565-7; Marsh v. Pier, 4 Rawle. (Pa.) 273. A valid judgment for the plaintiff sweeps away every defense that should have been raised against the action, for the purposes of every subsequent suit. Freeman on Judg. 272; Wells on Res. Ad. 216-222; §§…
1Opinion of the CourtHudson, J.
This action was brought in the court below to recover upon two promissory notes executed by the respondent to the appellant. The defendant (respondent here) in his answer admits the execution and delivery of the notes, but alleges as a counter claim that said notes, with two others, were given for and in consideration of one ten horse power threshing machine, known as the ‘‘J. I. Case Eclipse,” of the manufacture of 1877, theretofore sold and delivered to the defendant under a representation and warranty by the plaintiff at the time said machine was sold to the defendant. Said warranty was in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Webster v. Phœnix InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Dunham v. . MannNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. HailNebraska Supreme Court · 1876
- Pitt's Sons' Manufacturing Co. v. SpitznogleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. KnowlesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
3Cited by5 opinions
- Murphy v. Russell & Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1901
- Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co. v. HansonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
- J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. TateSupreme Court of Colorado · 1921
- Gould Balance Valve Co. v. HeroldNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Peabody v. Lloyds BankersNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896