Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. Root
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action by the payee against the makers to recover $185, the balance unpaid on two promissory notes, on which $150 had been paid.
Read the full summary
Action by the payee against the makers to recover $185, the balance unpaid on two promissory notes, on which $150 had been paid. For a counterclaim the defendants alleged that the sole consideration of the notes was a “vibrator threshing-machine,” made by plaintiff, (a Michigan corporation, having its place of business at Battle Creek, in that state,) and sold to the defendants by an agent of plaintiff, at Spring Valley in Fillmore county, with warranty; that the machine was not as warranted, and that by the breach of warranty the defendants were damaged in the sum of $425. At the trial in…
1Opinion of the CourtGtleillan, C. J.
The counterclaim of the defendants is based on a warranty precisely similar to that considered by this court in the case of Nichols v. Knowles, 31 Minn. 489, (18 N. W. Rep. 413.) As held in that case, the written notice to plaintiffs required by the conditions of the warranty might be waived by the plaintiffs.
This disposes of the exceptions to the court’s refusal to grant the plaintiffs’ second and third requests for instruction to the jury, for they proceed upon the theory that the defendants could not rely on the warranty unless the notice was in fact given, leaving out of account…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. KnowlesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kingman & Co. v. WatsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Karalis v. AgnewSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910