Legal Opinion

State v. Bucholz

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 26, 1926No. Nos. 25,588, 25,592PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.

Action by the state against the maker of a promissory note for the price of seed wheat furnished him in the spring of 1920, by the State Board of Relief, acting, so we are informed, pursuant to chap. 35, p. 53, L. 1919 (Ex. Sess.). The note, recited the purchase of the seed by defendant and that it was without warranty, express or implied. Defendant by answer averred that his purchase of the grain was induced by false and fraudulent representations that it was free from foul seeds, and that the grain in fact contained so much of quack grass and other noxious seeds that it was worthless. 'That…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Moffat v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Lane v. Minnesota State Agricultural SocietySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
  3. State v. Arkansas Brick & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  4. Claussen v. City of LuverneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
  5. State ex rel. Young v. HolgateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. HoggCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1988
  2. State v. WeatherbySupreme Court of Missouri · 1939
  3. People Ex Rel. Mosk v. BarenfeldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  4. Howard v. CookIdaho Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Provident Mgmt. v. City of Treas. IslandSupreme Court of Florida · 1998

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

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

Powered by the Exa API