Legal Opinion
Cosgrove v. Bennett
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided July 29, 1884PublishedCited by 24 opinions
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Rice* county, Backham, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after a trial by the court without a jury.
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
This action was brought to recover the unpaid, balance of the purchase price of a certain “roller mill, ” for the manufacture of flour, furnished to defendant upon his order as follows:
“Faribault, Minn., June 10, 1882.
“I, the undersigned, do hereby order from W. N. Cosgrove one of the Cosgrove Cascade Roller Mills, to be constructed for my mill in Bismarck, D. T. Machine to have capacity of one hundred barrels per twenty-four hours; to have five pairs of corrugated rolls. Machine to be constructed in first-class shape, and to be ready to ship in ninety days from the date of order, or sooner…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Polhemus v. HeimanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Mandel v. ButtlesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Haase v. NonnemacherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Scott v. RaymondSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
3Cited by24 opinions
- Davis Calyx Drill Co. v. MalloryCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
- J. I. Case Threshing MacHine Co. v. E. B. Hall & Keating Implement Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1903
- Remsberg v. Hackney Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
- Goulds v. BrophySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Crankshaw v. Schweizer Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.