French v. Yale
| Decision Date | 19 December 1913 |
| Citation | 124 Minn. 63,144 N.W. 451 |
| Parties | FRENCH et al. v. YALE. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; J. D. Ensign, Wm. A. Cant, and H. A. Dancer, Judges.
Action by George A. French and another, copartners as French & Bassett, against George E. Yale. From an order of the district court, affirming a judgment of the municipal court of Duluth for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Writing executed by the parties in connection with the sale of a piano held neither such a complete contract of sale, nor to sufficienty recite the terms of a past sale, so as to preclude the purchaser from proving by parol evidence a condition attaching to the sale, not embodied in the writing, entitling him to return the property if not satisfactory. J. B. Arnold, of New York City, and Arnold & Arnold, of Duluth, for appellant.
E. J. Kenny, of Duluth, for respondents.
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court of St. Louis county, affirming a judgment of the municipal court of Duluth.
Plaintiffs were dealers in musical instruments. After oral negotiations between the parties concerning the purchase of a Conover player piano, on November 19, 1910, both executed a writing wherein defendant first promised to pay plaintiffs $800, in installments, specified both as to amount and time, with interest at 5 per cent. from date, and then the writing proceeded: Then followed an agreement on defendant's part to keep the instrument insured against loss by fire for plaintiff's protection, and also a provision that in case of default in payments or interest, or abuse or attempted sale, incumbrance, or removal from defendant's residence without plaintiff's written consent, or if possession be parted with without such consent, plaintiffs might declare the contract and debt due and bring suit for the unpaid balance, or take possession of the property and sell the same, the expense however, to be applied first to the expense of the taking and sale, and the balance upon the contract, this surplus, if any, to be turned over to defendant, but if the amount received was insufficient to pay the contract, defendant to be liable for the unpaid balance, which should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bjornstad v. Northern States Power Co.
...302, 84 N. W. 1013; Rutherford v. Selover, 87 Minn. 495, 92 N. W. 413; McLoone v. Brusch, 119 Minn. 286, 138 N. W. 35; French v. Yale, 124 Minn. 63, 144 N. W. 451; W. W. Kimball Co. v. Massey, 126 Minn. 461, 148 N. W. 307; Wessel v. Cook, 132 Minn. 442, 157 N. W. 705; Farmers, etc., Co. v. ......
-
W. W. Kimball Co. v. Massey
...a warranty, the contract of purchase being substantially like the one considered, and held not to preclude such evidence, in French et al. v. Yale, 144 N. W. 451. Reed & Swift, of Minneapolis, and Stephen A. Johnson, of Buffalo, for appellant.Latham & Pidgeon, of Minneapolis, for respondent......
-
Shinners v. Ford
...Minn. 156, 129 N. W. 125, 388;Grant v. King, 117 Minn. 54, 134 N. W. 291;Clute Co. v. Latta, 123 Minn. 69, 142 N. W. 1048;French v. Yale, 124 Minn. 63, 144 N. W. 451;Germain v. Great Northern Lbr. Co., 143 Minn. 311, 173 N. W. 667;Geiger v. Sanitary Farm Dairies, 146 Minn. 235, 178 N. W. 50......
-
Robertson Lumber Co. v. Stephen Farmers Co-op. Elevator Co., 39601
...2, 3, 4, and 22.3 See, also, Wheaton Roller-Mill Co. v. John T. Noye Mfg. Co., 66 Minn. 156, 160, 68 N.W. 854, 855; French v. Yale, 124 Minn. 63, 65, 144 N.W. 451, 452.4 Warranty contracts are not treated as collateral agreements for purposes of applying the parol evidence rule. Jones v. Al......