Massillon Engine & Thresher Company v. Holdridge

• Decision Date: 27 May 1897
• Docket Number: 10,529--(105)
• Citation: Massillon Engine & Thresher Company v. Holdridge, 71 N.W. 399, 68 Minn. 393 (Minn. 1897)
• Parties: MASSILLON ENGINE & THRESHER COMPANY v. C. S. HOLDRIDGE and Another
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

71 N.W. 399

68 Minn. 393

MASSILLON ENGINE & THRESHER COMPANY v. C. S. HOLDRIDGE and Another

Nos. 10,529--(105)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 27, 1897

Action by the Massillon Engine & Thresher Company against Ed Churchill and C. S. Holdridge.The action was dismissed as to Holdridge, and from an order of the district court for Winona county, Gould, J., denying its motion for a new trialplaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Shaw Cray, Lancaster & Parker and Webber & Lees, for appellant.

Tawney Smith & Tawney, for respondent.

OPINION

MITCHELL, J.

This action was brought against the respondent and one Churchill to recover the purchase price of a boiler engine.The complaint alleged that the defendants"agreed in writing" to purchase the engine from the plaintiff, and to pay therefor $ 1,100, delivered on board the cars at St. Paul, billed to the defendants at St. Charles; that the defendants received and accepted the engine at St. Charles, but refused to pay for the same, or execute their promissory notes therefor, according to the terms of "said written contract."The answer of the defendant Holdridge consisted of a general denial, and was verified by his attorney on information and belief.Churchill, in his answer, admitted that he executed the contract of purchase, but alleged a breach of plaintiff's warranty as to the condition of the engine.Upon the trial, Churchill, being called by plaintiff for cross-examination, and being shown a written contract, Exhibit A, admitted the genuineness of his signature.Without any other proof of its execution, this contract was then introduced in evidence without objection by either defendant.It purports on its face to be executed by Ed. Churchill and "S. Holdridge."

The parol evidence introduced by the plaintiff had reference mainly to the defense of breach of warranty interposed by the defendant Churchill, but it tended to show that the negotiations with plaintiff for the purchase of the engine were entirely with Churchill, and that defendant Holdridge was not present when the contract was drawn up and signed by Churchill; also that, after the engine arrived at St. Charles, Churchill, Holdridge, and one Montgomery came there, and unloaded it from the car, and took it away, and that Holdridge personally paid the freight on it to McElhany, plaintiff's local agent, to whose care the engine was consigned.Upon this state of the evidence,...