Harris v. Simplex Tractor Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Clay county to recover $702.26 for false representations in the sale of a tractor. The answer was a general denial. The case was tried before Jelley, J., who when plaintiffs rested denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for the amount demanded. From an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
Plaintiffs are dealers in farm implements. In 1914, defendant began manufacturing the Simplex. Tractor, and the following spring sold one of them to plaintiffs. This machine was not a success. Alleging various representations and warranties upon which they had relied *279in making the purchase, that these representations and warranties were false and were known by defendant to be false when made and were made for the purpose of deceiving plaintiffs and did deceive them,' and that the machine was worthless, plaintiffs sued for damages and recovered a verdict for the full amount paid for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Frohreich v. GammonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Humphrey v. MerriamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. McNicholasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Benson v. Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Paulson v. D. M. Osborne & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
3Cited by5 opinions
- Moosbrugger v. McGraw-Edison CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
- Pioneer Electric Co. v. McCurdySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Gray v. Gurney Seed & Nursery Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1933
- Peoples State Bank v. RandbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Cashman v. BremerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935