Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Smith
Supreme Court of Minnesota
By written contract between the plaintiff of the first part, and defendants (partners as Smith & Culver) of the second part, the plaintiff appointed defendants its agents for the sale, in Olmsted county, -of Dewey harvesters, and other machines made by plaintiff, agreeing to supply these articles in specified quantities and at designated prices, the defendants to sell at the regular retail prices established by plaintiff, on terms of credit provided in the contract.
Read the full summary
By written contract between the plaintiff of the first part, and defendants (partners as Smith & Culver) of the second part, the plaintiff appointed defendants its agents for the sale, in Olmsted county, -of Dewey harvesters, and other machines made by plaintiff, agreeing to supply these articles in specified quantities and at designated prices, the defendants to sell at the regular retail prices established by plaintiff, on terms of credit provided in the contract. Among other stipulations on the part of the defendants, the contract contained the following articles: “Fifth — Said party of…
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
As we construe the contract between the parties to this action, the defendants, by the 5th article, agree to indorse their guaranty upon every machine note turned over to plaintiff which they have taken from any vendee of a machine whose responsibility, reputation and property condition are not such as the article specifies, and who has not executed the property statement therein mentioned. It is for the plaintiff, at the time when a note is being turned over to it, to ascertain and determine for itself whether the facts in regard io a particular note are such as to entitle it to require the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Farmer v. CrosbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Tufts v. TuftsUtah Supreme Court · 1892
- Plano Manufacturing Co. v. BuxtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Cooke v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- Mulvey v. StaabNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1887