Rowell v. Oleson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action upon a promissory note, brought in the district court for Eillmore county. Defendant pleaded, as a defence and counterclaim, a breach of warranty alleged to have been made by plaintiffs upon the sale to defendant of a Tiger Threshing-machine Separator, for a. part of the purchase price of which the note in suit was given.
Read the full summary
Action upon a promissory note, brought in the district court for Eillmore county. Defendant pleaded, as a defence and counterclaim, a breach of warranty alleged to have been made by plaintiffs upon the sale to defendant of a Tiger Threshing-machine Separator, for a. part of the purchase price of which the note in suit was given. Upon. the trial before Farmer, J., and a jury, the court received in evidence under plaintiffs’ objection and exception, the following warranty in writing, viz.: “Sept. 6,1880. “I hereby guarantee that this Tiger Separator shall do good work in every respect, and as…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
It was error in the court below to admit in evidence the warranty signed “S. E. Eord.” That Warranty was immaterial, and could tend but to confuse and mislead the jury, unless it was the contract of the plaintiffs. There was no attempt to show it *290to be their contract except by parol. That was incompetent. Where by its terms a contract is the contract of A, to show that it is the contract of B will vary or contradict its terms, as much as will evidence to change any other provision in it. Although the authorities are not in harmony on the point, the weight of them is to the effect that it…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Deering v. ThomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Dewey v. LeonardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869
- Williams v. McGradeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1868
3Cited by29 opinions
- Nunn v. BrillhartTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922
- Pleins v. WachenheimerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Wm. Lindeke Land Co. v. LevySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Kingman & Co. v. WatsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Helvetia Copper Co. v. Hart-Parr Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.