McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Balfany
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Redwood county to recover $185, the price of a harvester and binder. The case was tried before Webber, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of defendant; and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
We assume that when plaintiff, through its agents, who went to defendant’s house for that purpose, procured and received the orders signed by defendant, made out on one of plaintiff’s blanks, and furnished to defendant a copy thereof, there was an acceptance by plaintiff of defendant’s proposition to buy a machine, and thus the order became a complete executory contract, as between these parties; the plaintiff agreeing to sell, and the defendant agreeing to buy, the “right-hand” machine therein described. See Kessler v. Smith, 42 Minn. 494, 44 N. W. 794. This contract bore date April 15,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gibbons v. BenteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Rail v. Little Falls Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Kessler v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Jones v. SchneiderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
3Cited by9 opinions
- McHardy v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Sherman Nursery Co. v. AughenbaughSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Thomas D. Murphy Co. v. Exchange National Bank of HastingsNebraska Supreme Court · 1906
- Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. HeltsleyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
- Sioux Falls Adjustment Co. v. AikensSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.