McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Chesrown
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Faribault county, upon a promissory note given in part payment for a harvester. The answer alleged want of consideration, and that the harvester was sold “on trial” and guarantied to work satisfactorily, and that it was returned because it failed to work satisfactorily. The action was tried by Severance, J., without a jury, and upon the findings of the court judgment was ordered for defendant.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Faribault county, upon a promissory note given in part payment for a harvester. The answer alleged want of consideration, and that the harvester was sold “on trial” and guarantied to work satisfactorily, and that it was returned because it failed to work satisfactorily. The action was tried by Severance, J., without a jury, and upon the findings of the court judgment was ordered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
The evidence shows that in August, 1880, the plaintiff agreed to furnish defendant “a cord binder” in 1881, “guarantied to work satisfactorily.” The agreement was executory, and hence when the cord binder was furnished defendant had the right, before finally accepting it, to make a trial of it, reasonable as respects both time and manner, and a right to reject it if it did not work satisfactorily, that is to say, satisfactorily to him. 2 Addison on Cont. 942; Anson, Cont. 285; Pollock, Cont. 466; Doane v. Dunham, 65 Ill. 512; Leake, Cont. 284. In case, upon reasonable trial, it did not work…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Doane v. DunhamIllinois Supreme Court · 1872
- Gibson v. VailSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881
3Cited by24 opinions
- Mulcahy v. DieudonneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Campbell Printing-Press Co. v. ThorpU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1888
- Osborne v. FrancisWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1893
- A. S. Cameron Steam Pump Works v. Lubbock Light & Ice Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1914
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. CochranMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.