Neiman v. Channellene Oil & Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $5,000 damages to plaintiff’s good name and reputation as a grocer, and in his business, because of the alleged manufacture and sale to him of five gallons of cooking oil, which he claimed to be impure and poisonous..
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $5,000 damages to plaintiff’s good name and reputation as a grocer, and in his business, because of the alleged manufacture and sale to him of five gallons of cooking oil, which he claimed to be impure and poisonous.. The answer admitted that plaintiff was engaged in a small way in the grocery business in the city of Minneapolis; but denied all other allegations of the complaint, and alleged that any damage to plaintiff’s business was the result of his own negligence and carelessness and violation of law and was not caused by…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, J.
Respondent conducted a small retail grocery and notion store in Minneapolis. Appellant was a wholesaler, or jobber, and this action was brought to recover damages alleged to have ensued respondent’s business by reason of the purchase by him from appellant of unwholesome and poisonous coolring oil, which was innoceiitly sold by him to his customers. Respondent recovered a verdict of $200.
Appellant did not manufacture the oil, but claimed to have purchased it in Kansas City. Appellant’s manager, a witness at the trial, testified that he made no examination of the oil to see that it was proper…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Mazetti v. Armour & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913
- Lloyd F. Smith Co. v. Den-Tal-Ez, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Flessher v. Carstens Packing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1916
- Southwest Ice & Dairy Products v. FaulkenberrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1950
- Canton Provision Co. v. GauderOhio Supreme Court · 1935
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.