Thoreson v. Minneapolis Harvester Works
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was brought in the district court for Freeborn county. The complaint, after setting out the incorporation of defendant, alleges, that on July 30, 1878, defendant, for the consideration stated, “agreed to and with these plaintiffs to sell them a reaping machine;” “that said defendant then and there, by its agent, duly authorized thereto, represented and warranted to these plaintiffs that said * * * reaper was a good and perfect machine for the uses and purposes…
Read the full summary
This action was brought in the district court for Freeborn county. The complaint, after setting out the incorporation of defendant, alleges, that on July 30, 1878, defendant, for the consideration stated, “agreed to and with these plaintiffs to sell them a reaping machine;” “that said defendant then and there, by its agent, duly authorized thereto, represented and warranted to these plaintiffs that said * * * reaper was a good and perfect machine for the uses and purposes for which it was intended, * * * and that said machine was reasonably worth and of the actual value of $155;” and “that…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
The action is founded upon a sale of a reaping machine by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The complaint seems to have been framed with a view to a recovery of damages for breach of a warranty made upon the sale of the property, and also with refer; ence to a recovery of the purchase price, upon the ground that the contract of sale had been rescinded. These two grounds of action are inconsistent. The one rests upon the existing obligation of the contract; the other upon its dissolution and non-existence. The de-*344fenclant, however, did not seek to confine the issues to one of these positions,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Frohreich v. GammonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Barker v. ClevelandMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
- McKnight v. . DevlinNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Isaacson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Knoblauch v. KronschnabelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872
3Cited by14 opinions
- Jacobs v. Rosemount Dodge-Winnebago SouthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Bowman v. EppingerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1890
- Burgess v. FelixSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Fitzpatrick v. D. M. Osborne & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Holden v. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1931
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.