McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Martin
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Field, J. Osborne v. Maries, 22 N. W. Rep. [Minn.], 1; Melby v. Osborne, 24 Id., 253; Aultman v. Stout, 15 Neb., 586; Osborne v. Carpenter, 34 N. W. Rep. [Minn.], 183; Osborne v. Huntington, 33 Id., 789.
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
This action was brought on a promissory note, dated July 1, 1885. The note was one of three given for a McCormick self-binder. About January 1, 1886, the first note was paid, and subsequently thereto the defendant paid $10 on the second note. In September, 1887, he gave a chattel mortgage on certain property to secure the second note.
The defendant in his answer alleges that plaintiff verbally, by its agent, who sold said binder to the defendant, warranted said binder to do first-class work in the cutting, binding, and saving grain. He also alleges that the *724binder failed to comply with the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hazen v. WilhelmieNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
- Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Co. v. PereauNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- Skinner Manufacturing Co. v. Carrier Engineering Corp.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1925