Hansen v. Gaar, Scott & Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Otter Tail county, Charles L. Lewis, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
About August 1, 1892, plaintiff ordered of defendant corporation, the manufacturer, a grain-threshing outfit, including a separator. The order was in writing, and contained defendant’s warranty that the machinery was made of good materials, and, with proper care and management, would do as good work as any other of its size made for the same purpose in the United States. Following this warranty were a number of conditions imposed on the plaintiff purchaser in case of a failure of the machinery to fill the warranty, of the character usually found in these orders. We need not specify their…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Demars v. Musser-Sauntry Land, Logging & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Fitzgerald v. EvansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by6 opinions
- Silander v. GronnaNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906
- Saunders v. CowlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
- Peterson v. HegnaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Sunset Orchard Land Co. v. Sherman Nursery Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Hansen v. Gaar, Scott & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.