Kerrick v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
This action is, in part, for the recovery of the price of a machine called the Bichmond Under-running Corn Stone, which the defendants ordered to be- furnished to them by the plaintiff at an agreed price. The defence alleged to this cause of action is a false and fraudulent representation on the part of the plaintiff, inducing the defendants' to purchase, that the machine would grind 40 bushels of corn per hour. By the verdict of the jury this defence was allowed. Our inquiry is as to whether it was sustained by the evidence.
There was sufficient proof of the rhaking of the alleged…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Franklin Co-Operative Creamery Ass'n v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
- Edward Thompson Co. v. SchroederSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Meland v. YoungbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- General Electric Co. v. O'ConnellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- Schmitt v. Ornes Esswein & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.