Gammon v. Ganfield
| Decision Date | 18 January 1890 |
| Citation | 44 N.W. 125,42 Minn. 368 |
| Parties | GAMMON ET AL. v GANFIELD. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Two defenses are not inconsistent, if both may be true.
2. Certain instruments executed by the purchaser of personal property to secure deferred payments, held not to be the contract of sale, so as to exclude oral testimony of the terms of sale.
3. Exclusion of evidence that could not, if admitted, have affected the verdict, does not prejudice.
Appeal from district court, Rock county; PERKINS, Judge.
E. H. Canfield, for appellants.
P. E. Brown, for respondent.
The action is to recover the remainder of the purchase price of a harvester and binder sold by plaintiffs to defendant. The answer alleges that the sale to defendant was by sample, and that by the terms of the sale the machine delivered or to be delivered was to be equal in quality and description to the machine shown to him, and that it was not equal to said machine, and that on discovering the fact he notified plaintiffs thereof, and returned to them the one delivered him. It also alleges that on such sale the plaintiffs warranted the machine to be properly made and constructed, and of good material, and that with proper handling it would do good work in any grain, and as good as any other machine, and the answer then alleges a breach of this warranty. At the opening of the trial the plaintiffs moved that the defendant be required to elect on which of these two defenses he would rely, the motion assuming them to be inconsistent. The court below denied the motion. It may be that, if one of the defenses were established, the other would be entirely unnecessary. But that is not a test of consistency in two defenses. The test is, may they both be true? It is only where, if one be true, the other must be false, that there is an inconsistency. Roblee v. Secrest, 28 Minn. 43,8 N. W. Rep. 904. It is not impossible that both of these defenses are true. There is even no improbability in the facts alleged that it was agreed or warranted that the machine to be delivered defendant should be equal in quality and description with the one shown him, and that it was also further warranted that the machine sold was properly made and constructed, and of good material, and that with proper handling it would do good work, etc. In purchasing such a thing the purchaser may require warranties in as many particulars as he pleases.
To prove their case plaintiffs introduced in evidence two notes signed by defendant containing many stipulations by him, manifestly for the security of plaintiffs, among them that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bjornstad v. Northern States Power Co.
...19 Minn. 383 (Gil. 329); Domestic S. M. Co. v. Anderson, 23 Minn. 57; Wilson v. Hentges, 29 Minn. 102, 12 N. W. 151; Gammon v. Ganfield, 42 Minn. 368, 44 N. W. 125; Beyerstedt v. Winona Mill Co. 49 Minn. 1, 51 N. W. 619; Phœnix Pub. Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co., 54 Minn. 205, 55 N. W. 912;......
-
W. W. Kimball Co. v. Massey
...It contains no agreement on the part of the seller. Under the decision just cited, and others in this court, like Gammon v. Ganfield, 42 Minn. 368, 44 N. W. 125,Aultman et al. v. Clifford, 55 Minn. 159, 56 N. W. 593,43 Am. St. Rep. 478,Hand v. Ryan Drug Co., 63 Minn. 539, 65 N. W. 1081,Pott......
-
W. W. Kimball Co. v. Massey
... ... It contains no ... agreement on the part of the seller. Under the decision just ... cited and others, in this court, like Gammon v ... Ganfield, 42 Minn. 368, 44 N.W. 125; Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Clifford, 55 Minn. 159, 56 N.W. 593, 43 Am. St ... 478; Hand v. Ryan Drug Co ... ...
-
Abramovitz v. National Council of Knights And Ladies of Security
... ... have been default in the payment of assessments, and a ... failure to furnish proofs of loss as well. Gammon v ... Ganfield, 42 Minn. 368, 44 N.W. 125; Lane v. St ... Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. 50 Minn. 227, 52 N.W. 649, 17 ... L.R.A. 197; Minneapolis ... ...