Haase v. Nonnemacher
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action upon three promissory notes. Defence, that the notes were given for the price* of certain tobacco sold by plaintiffs to defendant Nonnemacher, under a representation, made when the tobacco was ordered, that such tobacco should be of the best quality; but that the tobacco delivered ivas of inferior quality, and unfit for defendant’s use, to defendant’s damage in the sum of $200, which he asks to recoup against any claim plaintiffs may prove.
Read the full summary
Action upon three promissory notes. Defence, that the notes were given for the price* of certain tobacco sold by plaintiffs to defendant Nonnemacher, under a representation, made when the tobacco was ordered, that such tobacco should be of the best quality; but that the tobacco delivered ivas of inferior quality, and unfit for defendant’s use, to defendant’s damage in the sum of $200, which he asks to recoup against any claim plaintiffs may prove. At the trial in the district court for Winona county, before Mitchell, J., the following facts appeared from the evidence, and were admitted by the…
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
As the facts are stated in the bill of exceptions, the plaintiffs applied to the defendant Nonnemacher, at Winona, and solicited him to buy tobacco from them, representing to him that they could furnish him a “tip-top article of number one tobacco,” of certain specified kinds. Nonnemacher, relying on the representations, gave plaintiffs his verbal order for a certain quantity of the kinds and quality mentioned, to be shipped by plaintiffs at Milwaukee, to him at Winona. No tobacco was delivered or exhibited to him, at the time of the order. The quantity ordered was shipped to him, and by him…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Reed v. . RandallNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Howard & Ryckman v. HoeyNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Sprague v. BlakeNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Hargous v. . StoneNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- McCormick v. . SarsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Cosgrove v. BennettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Haase v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
- Brown v. BairdSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1897
- Maxwell v. LeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Thompson v. LibbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.