D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Huntington
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The plaintiff (a corporation) brought this action upon two notes, ■each for $130, which had been given by the defendant for part of the purchase price of a harvesting-machine. The answer admitted the making of the notes, and set up as a counterclaim damages for breach of warranty made upon the sale of the machine.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff (a corporation) brought this action upon two notes, ■each for $130, which had been given by the defendant for part of the purchase price of a harvesting-machine. The answer admitted the making of the notes, and set up as a counterclaim damages for breach of warranty made upon the sale of the machine. The action was tried in the district court for Faribault county, before Severance, J., and a jury, and defendant had a verdict for $5. Plaintiff appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Dickenson, J.1
This action is upon two notes given by the defendant to the plaintiff, August 30, 1881, for $130 each, as a part of the price of a self-binding harvester, which, as the evidence goes to show, the defendant had purchased from the plaintiff in the preceding July. The defendant, alleging a warranty of the machine and its breach, demanded the recoupment of damages therefor. The price of the machine was $325, and no question is made but that if it had been as represented it would have been worth that sum. It is apparent, from the verdict of the jury, that damages were assessed for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Melby v. D. M. Osborne & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- D. M. Osborne & Co. v. MarksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
3Cited by4 opinions
- Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. HolidaySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Sleeper v. ZeiterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Wyckoff v. HoranSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Harris MacHinery Co. v. HeinerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930