Elwood v. Saterlie
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Swift county, Powers, J., refusing a new trial after verdict for defendants.
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
This is an action on a promissory'note made by defendants to the order of W. A. Godwin & Son, and by them indorsed to plaintiff. The defense is that the note was given for part of the purchase price of a stallion bought by defendants S. S. and L. S. Saterlie from Godwin & Son, who warranted the horse in several respects, and as to such horse fraudulently made certain false statements which the purchasers believed, and on which they relied, and were induced thereby to purchase the horse. There are further allegations in the answer which state a good counterclaim or recoupment as against Godwin…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Youngs v. VredenburghNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Oden v. StubblefieldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- Bliss v. WinstonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
- Williams v. EnsignSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823
3Cited by9 opinions
- McDonald v. BayhaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Murphy v. DafoeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
- Clapper v. DickinsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis v. HowlettNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932
- Tremont v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.