Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. McDonald
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Richland County; Lauder, J. Action by the Minneapolis Threshing Machine Company against Hugh McDonald. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. The evidence offered by defendant of its willingness to repurchase the machinery on different terms should have been received and .submitted to the jury, because it was plaintiff’s duty to minimize damages upon defendant’s breach of contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Richland County; Lauder, J. Action by the Minneapolis Threshing Machine Company against Hugh McDonald. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. The evidence offered by defendant of its willingness to repurchase the machinery on different terms should have been received and .submitted to the jury, because it was plaintiff’s duty to minimize damages upon defendant’s breach of contract. Sherman v. Port Huron Engine Co., 82 N. W. Rep. 413. A resale, in order to hold defendant for damages, in case of a deficiency, would have to be made according to the custom…
1Opinion of the CourtMorgan, J.
In this action plaintiff seeks to recover damages-from the defendant on account of his refusal to comply with a certain contract for the sale of a threshing machine outfit, including separator and accompanying attachments. The contract was in writing, and signed by the defendant. It was an order for a separator and necessary attachments, dated on June 14, 1899, and it contained a detailed contract for the purchase of the same.- The defendant therein agreed “to pay the advance freight on the machine and attachments, ordered herein,” and therein further “agreed to receive the above-described…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pollen v. . Le RoyNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Stanford v. McGillNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
- Barron v. MullinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- McCormick v. BasalSupreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- Haines v. BeachMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hayes v. CooleyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
- Cain v. Grosshans & Petersen, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1966
- Alm Construction Company v. VertinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1962
- Hart-Parr Co. v. FinleyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Reeves & Co. v. BrueningNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.