McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. McNicholas
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Meeker • county, in favor of defendant, after a trial before Powers, J., and a , jury.
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
This is an action on a promissory note for $40 given, with others, in payment of the purchase price of a harvester and binder sold by plaintiff to defendant. The answer admitted the note, and set up a counterclaim for damages arising from a breach of *385warranty of the maohine. Verdict and judgment for $12.20 in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment.
The first assignment of error is to the effect that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the note. The second one is “that the court erred in holding…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Fairbanks v. . Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Twin City Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Muskogee Electric Traction Co v. RyeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Westbrook v. Reeves & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Harris v. Simplex Tractor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.