21 Minn. 391 (Minn. 1875), Mandel v. Buttles

Citation:21 Minn. 391
Opinion Judge:Berry, J.
Party Name:A. G. Mandel v. Harold J. Buttles and another
Attorney:H. C. Butler, for appellants. Chas. M. Start, for respondent.
Case Date:April 01, 1875
Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Page 391

21 Minn. 391 (Minn. 1875)

A. G. Mandel


Harold J. Buttles and another

Supreme Court of Minnesota

April 1, 1875

Page 392

[Syllabus Material]

Page 393

[Syllabus Material]

Page 394

[Syllabus Material]

Page 395

Action on a bill of exchange, drawn by the plaintiff on the defendants, and by them accepted. Defence, that the bill was accepted on account of certain varnishes, etc., theretofore furnished by plaintiff to defendants, under a representation and warranty made by plaintiff to them, at the time of furnishing the goods, that such goods were of the best quality, and were fit and proper materials for varnishing the best kinds of furniture. That the defendants ordered the goods for use in staining and varnishing the best kinds of furniture, trusting in the representations and warranty of plaintiff. That the goods were not fit or proper for such purpose, but altogether unsuitable, and have always been and are altogether useless to defendants. That at the time of the acceptance of the bill, defendants did not and could not know the character of the goods or any of them, but believed them to be as represented and warranted by plaintiff. That as soon as the defendants had the means of learning, and did learn the character of said goods, they notified plaintiff that they would not accept them, and offered to return them, which they are still ready and willing to do.

At the trial in the district court for Olmsted county, before Mitchell, J., it appeared from the testimony of the defendants, that in March, 1872, an agent of plaintiff, whose place of business is in New York, called on the defendants at their place of business in Rochester, in this state, and obtained from them the following order:

Rochester, Minn., March, 1872.

Messrs. A. G. Mandel & Co., New York.

Please ship by R. W. at once the following goods, ordered though your agent, M. A. Hostetter:

No. bbls. Price per Gallon.
1 No. 1 Copal $ 1 40
1 Pure Shellac 3 00
1-2 Walnut Stain 1 00
1-2 F flowing 2 50
Terms six months.
Buttles & Herrick. Before taking the order, the agent said the goods were the best of their kind, and (according to the testimony of Buttles) if defendants did not find them so, on trial, they need not keep them; or, as testified by Herrick, the agent warranted the goods to be of the best quality, and suitable for use in defendants' business, and that on trial, if defendants found them not so, they need not pay for them. The goods were sent from New York, March 26, and at the same time a notice of shipment, with a bill of the goods, was sent to defendants, which they received about six weeks after the order was given. Defendants objected to certain alleged overcharges, and some time was consumed in adjusting this claim. At length, about ten weeks from the date of the order, defendants were credited with the amount of the overcharges, and for the balance, being the price of the goods ordered and sent...

To continue reading