Legal Opinion

Rauhauser v. Owatonna Canning Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 1, 1926No. 25,179PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.

Plaintiff, a farmer, made an agreement with defendant, a canning company, to seed 6| acres to peas when and as directed by defendant, and to harvest and deliver the crop when the latter determined that it was fit for canning. The plot of ground on plaintiff’s farm where the crop was to be raised was selected by defendant who also furnished the seed, 2á bushels at $5 per bushel. Defendant agreed to pay plaintiff 2¿ cents a pound for the peas as shelled at the factory. The crop was planted as agreed. When approaching the canning condition, plaintiff claims he brought in samples, and urged…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. St. Louis Range Co. v. Kline-Drummond Mercantile Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
  2. Barron G. Collier, Inc. v. KindySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
  3. Schommer v. Flour City Ornamental Iron WorksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  4. Wilcox Trux, Inc. v. RosenbergerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
  5. Kincaid v. JungkunzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hess v. KoskovitchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API