McLoone v. Brusch
| Citation | 138 N.W. 35,119 Minn. 286 |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,818 - (138) |
| Parties | JOHN McLOONE and Another v. CHARLES J. H. BRUSCH |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Action in the district court for Waseca county to recover $145.75 the balance due upon the price of a corn husker, and freight thereon from the factory to Waseca. At the trial, the parties stipulated in open court that, if oral testimony was admissible to establish the allegations of the answer relative to terms of purchase not set forth in the written order set out in the opinion, then the defendant was to have a verdict directed in his favor; if not, then the plaintiffs were to have a verdict directed in their favor for the amount demanded. The trial court, Childress, J., held such evidence admissible and directed a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying plaintiffs' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, plaintiffs appealed. Affirmed.
Written contract -- parol evidence admissible.
The written executory order for the shipment of goods to defendant, set out in the opinion, held not on its face a complete expression of the contract between the parties, and that evidence of a contemporaneous parol warranty of the goods was admissible. Aultman, Miller & Co. v Clifford, 55 Minn. 159; Phoenix Pub. Co. v. Riverside Clothing Co. 54 Minn. 205; and Boynton Furnace Co. v. Clark, 42 Minn. 335, followed and applied.
Moonan & Moonan, for appellants.
F. B. Andrews and F. W. Senn, for respondent.
Action to recover the purchase price of a corn shredder, in which defendant had a verdict, and plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial.
The action was founded upon an instrument in the following language, namely:
Defendant interposed in defense an oral warranty of the soundness of the shredder, made at the time the order therefor was given, a breach thereof and resulting damages. When the cause came on for trial in the court below the parties entered into a stipulation to the effect that, if evidence of the alleged parol warranty was admissible, over plaintiff's objection that it would vary and add to the written contract, a verdict should be by the court directed in defendant's favor; and that if such evidence was held inadmissible a verdict should be directed for plaintiff for the purchase price of the machine. The trial court held the evidence admissible and, in harmony with the stipulation, directed a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial.
The only question presented on this appeal is the correctness of the ruling of the trial court under the stipulation. In other words, whether the order, set out in full above, is a complete contract between the parties to which the rule excluding parol evidence modifying or adding to its provisions applies.
The question is not, from the standpoint of previous decisions of the court, entirely free from doubt. Within the rule applied in Wemple v. Knopf, 15 Minn. 355 (440); Kessler v. Smith, 42 Minn. 494, 44 N.W. 794; and American Mnfg. Co. v. Klarquist, 47 Minn. 344, 50...
To continue reading
Request your trial