Mandel v. Buttles

Decision Date01 April 1875
Citation21 Minn. 391
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
PartiesA. G. MANDEL <I>vs.</I> HAROLD J. BUTTLES and another.

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 them, the bill in suit was drawn, bearing date March 26, 1872, payable six months thereafter, and was accepted by defendants July 18, 1872. Afterwards, and early in October, 1872, the defendants took the goods away from the railroad depot.

On October 9, the defendants wrote to plaintiff, asking sixty days more time on the bill, on the ground of delay in the arrival of the goods, and the further delay caused by the overcharges, adding: "We have not tried all the goods yet; nothing but the shellac: that we find good."

On December 16, 1872, defendants wrote to plaintiff, as follows: "We have tried all the goods we had of you. The shellac and copal varnish are not what they should be for the price. The shellac I tried, and wrote you we were pleased with it. When we got a finisher, he called it poor, and don't like to use it. Had we known this before we accepted the draft, we would not have accepted it. But as it is, we will pay for the goods as soon as we can, or will hold them subject to your order. We have not used any more than to make a fair trial, and will not before spring. Business has come to a standstill. We cannot remit until trade commences again."

Defendants also introduced evidence tending to prove that the goods had remained in the basement of their factory since they were received; that they had tried them on their furniture, and that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Inland Products Corp. v. Donovan, Inc.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1953
    ...provided by law. Tunell v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 31 Minn. 343, 17 N.W. 944; D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Marks, 33 Minn. 56, 22 N.W. 1; Mandel v. Buttles, 21 Minn. 391; Fitzpatrick v. D. M. Osborne & Co., 50 Minn. 261, 52 N.W. 861; Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Patterson, 65 Minn. 449, 68 N.W. 69; Hjorth v......
  • Wasatch Orchard Co. v. Morgan Canning Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1907
    ... ... his warranty. (Douglass v. Gardner, 10 Cush. 88; ... Perrine v. Serrall, 30 N. J. L. 454; Mandel v ... Buttles, 21 Minn. 391; McCormick v. Dunville, ... 36 Iowa 645; Eyers v. Haddem, 70 F. 648; Love v ... Ross, 89 Iowa 400; Fitzpatrick v ... ...
  • Kingman v. Watson
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1897
    ...the defective property, or he might waive it and recover damages for breach of the warranty. Further, on the same subject, are Mandel v. Buttles, 21 Minn. 391; Perrine v. Serrell, 30 N. J. Law, 454; and Seigworth v. Leffel, 76 Pa. St. 476. Now it would seem, without the aid of judicial auth......
  • Leitner v. Thayer
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • October 2, 1916
    ... ... v. Lantz, 116 Ill.App.Ct. 472; Moore v ... Emerson, 63 Mo.App. 137; Birch v. Kavanaugh Knitting ... Co., 34 A.D. 614, 54 N.Y.S. 449; Mandel v ... Buttles, 21 Minn. 391; Fitzpatrick v. D. M. Osborne ... Co., 50 Minn. 261, 52 N.W. 861; Park et al. v ... Richardson & Boynton Co., 81 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT