Cary & Co. v. F.E. Satterlee & Co.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | 25,005 |
| Citation | 208 N.W. 408,166 Minn. 507 |
| Parties | CARY & COMPANY v. F.E. SATTERLEE & COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to reform a conditional sales contract and enjoin defendant from prosecuting an action in replevin. The case was tried before Reed, J., who dismissed the action because plaintiff had failed to establish a cause of action. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment. Affirmed.
Appearance of disbarred attorney not permitted.
1. Refusal to allow disbarred attorney to appear for a corporation was proper, even if he owned all of its stock. [Reporter.]
When conditional sale contract will not be reformed.
2. Oral agreements purposely omitted from written conditional sale contract will not be inserted by the court to make a different contract from that agreed on. [Reporter.]
Motion to strike case from calendar and motion for temporary injunction denied.
3. As plaintiff had no cause of action for reformation of contract it was proper to deny its motion to strike case from trial calendar after agreeing to have it set as condition to issue of temporary restraining order -- Where buyer who is not in default has defense to action in replevin for goods sold injunction will not issue, as his defense is adequate. [Reporter.]
Dismissal of action.
4. Where neither complaint nor evidence shows facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to relief, judgment of dismissal is correct. [Reporter.]
Attorney and Client, 6 C.J. p. 614 n. 66.
Injunctions, 32 C.J. p. 99 n. 51; p. 380 n. 12.
Harry Hamilton Nelson, for appellant.
James E. Carr, for respondent.
Defendant in this suit brought an action in replevin in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis to recover certain machinery which it had sold to plaintiff under a conditional sale contract. Thereupon plaintiff brought this action in the district court to reform the conditional sale contract and enjoin defendant from prosecuting the action in replevin, and obtained a temporary restraining order. The court found that plaintiff had failed to establish a cause of action and denied any relief. Plaintiff appealed.
The complaint alleges the bringing of the action in replevin and contains further allegations to the effect that when the machinery was purchased defendant promised and agreed to take back any machine which plaintiff should wish to return and to give plaintiff credit for the purchase price thereof, and also promised and agreed to make good any parts found to be defective or missing, and that these agreements were not included in the written contract, for the reason that defendant intended to use the contract as collateral security for loans at the bank and it would not be acceptable to the bank if it contained such provisions. The complaint contains further allegations to the effect that defendant had refused to accept a machine which plaintiff sought to return and had failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial