Koehler & Hinrichs Mercantile Co. v. Illinois Glass Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $1,993.70 for breach of contract. The answer set up as defenses; (1) That the carloads of flasks ordered by plaintiff were not for resale in the usual course of business, but at wholesale in the Chicago market for speculation; (2) that plaintiff failed to notify defendant whether it accepted the terms of payment and credit demanded by defendant, the flasks requiring to be specially manufactured with plaintiff’s…
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $1,993.70 for breach of contract. The answer set up as defenses; (1) That the carloads of flasks ordered by plaintiff were not for resale in the usual course of business, but at wholesale in the Chicago market for speculation; (2) that plaintiff failed to notify defendant whether it accepted the terms of payment and credit demanded by defendant, the flasks requiring to be specially manufactured with plaintiff’s trade-mark and unsalable in the open market without involving defendant in controversy with plaintiff over the use of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Lees, C.
This was an action to recover damages for breach of a contract of sale tried by the court without a jury. The findings were in plaintiff’s favor and defendant appeals from .an order denying a new trial.
• Plaintiff is a dealer at wholesale in glassware, bottles, flasks and oth,er merchandise. Its place of business is at St. Paul. Defendant is a manufacturer of glassware at Alton, Illinois, and has an agency for the sale of its goods at St. Paul. On January 9, 1915, a contract in writing between defendant and the Koehler & Hinriehs Company was executed. By its terms the former agreed to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Arkansas Valley Smelting Co. v. Belden Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Delaware County Commissioners v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Rochester Lantern Co. v. Stiles & Parker Press Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Conley Camera Co. v. Multiscope & Film Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1914
- First National Bank v. Corporation Securities Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Stanley Clayman and Melvin Clayman v. Goodman Properties, IncCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1974
- City of Minneapolis v. Republic Creosoting Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Welsh v. Barnes-Duluth Shipbuilding Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- Concordia College Corp. v. Salvation ArmyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
- McMurray v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLCDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2021
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.