Plano Manufacturing Co. v. Richards
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Todd county, Searle, J., denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and granting a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtLovely, J.
Action to recover on a promissory note for $70. Its execution is admitted, but it is claimed that the consideration therefor wholly failed, for the reasons, as substantially stated in the answer, that, prior to the making of the note, defendant had purchased a harvesting machine from plaintiff upon the warranty that it would do good work, and in payment gave his three notes, of $45 each; that the machine could not be made to do good work; that afterwards there was a settlement between the parties, by the terms of which it was agreed that, if defendant would execute and deliver the note upon…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cruikshank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Frohreich v. GammonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Marquardt v. HubnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Fitzpatrick v. D. M. Osborne & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Thoreson v. Minneapolis Harvester WorksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Despatch Oven Co. v. RauenhorstSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- Mulcahy v. DieudonneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Rickards v. Aultman & Taylor Machinery Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1922
- Segerstrom v. SwensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Conroy v. LogueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.