Goulds v. Brophy
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiffs brought this action in the district court for Brown county, to recover the contract price ($154) of the “ outfit” described in the opinion. Defence, breach of the alleged warranty stated in the opinion. Upon the trial, before Webber, J., the evidence offered to sustain this defence was excluded, and a verdict was directed for plaintiffs. The defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The plaintiffs were manufacturers of and dealers in an earth-boring auger and appurtenances, known as the “Challenge Auger Outfit,” of which they had published and circulated descriptive catalogues, one of which they sent to defendant. This catalogue contained cuts or models of the outfit when put up and at work, and of the auger, and enumerated the various tools, etc., of which a full outfit consisted, which were stated to include “everything needed to bore a well, except wood-work for a derrick.” It also gave the prices of different sized augers up to 20 inches, and stated that plaintiffs…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cosgrove v. BennettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
3Cited by25 opinions
- J. I. Case Plow Works v. Niles & Scott Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- Davis Calyx Drill Co. v. MalloryCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
- Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. BaskettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Crankshaw v. Schweizer Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Ehrsam v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas · 1907
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.