Legal Opinion
Juergens v. Thom
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided November 26, 1888PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Appeal by plaintiffs (assignees of J. F. Seiberling & Co.) from an order of the district court for McLeod county, Eclson, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict for defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
This action is brought to recover the price of an “Empire Twine-Binder,” sold to defendant in July, 1886, with warranty. The defence is breach of the warranty, which was in writing, and was as follows:
“Warranty. All our Empire machines are warranted to cut, if properly managed, an equal amount of grain or grass as any other machine of same width of cut, and made for a like purpose. The-*459purchaser is allowed to cut five acres on trial; and, in case anything proves defective, due notice must be given to us or our agent, and time allowed to send a person to put it in order. If it does not work…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Erben v. . LorillardNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Platner v. . PlatnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Linsday v. . People of the State of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Yankee Jim's Union Water Co. v. CraryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Frohreich v. GammonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Burch v. BernardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Crowley v. Burns Boiler & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- State v. WatzekSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924