Peerless Machine Co. v. Gates
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of tbe district court for Clay •county, Ives, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
CANTY, J.2
This is an action of replevin for the recovery of the possession of a threshing machine. Both parties claim title from the same vendor, — the Geiser Manufacturing Company. Plaintiff claims that it purchased the machine from the Geiser Company July 17, 1892, and defendant claims that he purchased it from the Geiser Company, and took possession of it, prior to that time, to wit, in October, 1891. On the trial, defendant had a verdict, and *125from an order denying its motion for a new trial plaintiff appeals.
1. There is evidence tending to prove that defendant got the machine from the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Holmes v. CampbellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1868
3Cited by9 opinions
- Wild v. RarigSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Armstrong & Latta v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Lestico v. KuehnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
- Ocala Foundry & Machine Works v. LesterSupreme Court of Florida · 1905
- Tucker v. HagertyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.