McFadden v. Follrath
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action, in the district court for Sibley county to recover $77.03 for goods sold and delivered. The answer admitted the sale and delivery of the goods and their value as alleged in the complaint, and alleged that on February 8, 1909, the claim was satisfied by payment in full. The case was tried before Morrison, J., who made findings of fact and ordered judgment in favor of defendant. From an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, he appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtSimpson, J.
The plaintiff is engaged in a wholesale business, and the defendant is a retail merchant at Arlington. The defendant had bought goods from the plaintiff, and paid therefor, for several years. These payments had heen made from time to time to traveling salesmen of plaintiff, who presented statements of account to defendant. Payment was usually made by checks payable to plaintiff’s order, and delivered to such agents. These checks were, by the agents, sent in to plaintiff, by plaintiff indorsed, and through the usual channels were paid and returned to defendant. On the eighth of February…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ermentrout v. Girard Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Dispatch Printing Co. v. National Bank of CommerceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Thomson v. . Bank of British North AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Columbia Mill Co. v. National Bank of CommerceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Varley v. SimsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Spiegel v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1949
- Village of Edina v. JosephSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
- Navrides v. Zurich InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Citizens & Peoples National BankSupreme Court of Florida · 1917
- Sterrett v. Stoddard Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1935
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.