Legal Opinion

Parr v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 23, 1887PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal by defendants from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, refusing a new trial after a verdict for plaintiff.

1Opinion of the CourtDicKinson, J.

The complaint is in the ordinary form for the recovery of an alleged unpaid balance of the agreed price of a horse which the plaintiff had sold to the defendants. The answer alleges that the unpaid balance was, by the terms of the contract, to be paid in furniture, and this is admitted by the reply. The answer also ■sets forth false and fraudulent representations made by the plaintiff as to the qualities of the horse, upon which the defendants relied, and that they had tendered and demanded a rescission of the sale. They demand j udgment for so much of the price of the horse as they have paid…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kellogg v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Otto Gas Engine Works v. MooreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API