C. Aultman & Co. v. Olson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff -(a corporation) from an order of the district court for Polk county, Mills, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The instruments declared on are not, in legal import, distinguishable from the one considered in Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Hally, 27 Minn. 495, (8 N. W. Rep. 597,) in which it was held that, the property which was the expressed consideration for the instrument having been taken from the possession of the defendant by the plaintiff and sold, there was a total failure of consideration, and therefore an action on the instrument for the price of the property could not be maintained. This proceeded upon the theory that the contract was a mere conditional sale, or rather an executory contract…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Minneapolis Harvester Works v. HallySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Third National Bank v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Brewster v. BakerNew York Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by12 opinions
- Dunlop v. MercerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Parke & Lacy Co. v. White River Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- Alden v. Dyer & BrotherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Keystone Manufacturing Co. v. CasselliusSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- C. W. Raymond Co. v. KahnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.