Nichols & Shepard Co. v. Wiedemann
| Decision Date | 15 July 1898 |
| Docket Number | 11,070 - (91) |
| Citation | 76 N.W. 41,72 Minn. 350 |
| Parties | NICHOLS & SHEPARD COMPANY v. ANNA WIEDEMANN |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Original Opinion Filed May 23, 1898
Sale -- Warranty -- Divisibility -- Finding Sustained.
Evidence considered, and held, that it sustains the finding of the trial court to the effect that the defendant complied with the conditions of the warranty of a threshing outfit purchased of the plaintiff.
Offer of Evidence -- Materiality -- Scofield v. Walrath, 35 Minn. 356, Followed.
Rule in Scofield v. Walrath, 35 Minn. 356, and previous cases, that evidence offered must be made to appear material followed and applied.
Counterclaim -- Relief Limited by Answer.
The defendant gave her promissory notes and certain old machinery at the agreed price of $758 for the purchase price of new machinery. In her answer she claimed a rescission of the sale, and alleged the value of the old machinery to be $600, for which she asked judgment, and for a cancellation of the notes. Held, that her money recovery was limited to $600.
On July 15, 1898, the following opinion was filed:
On Reargument
A motion was granted for a reargument on the question whether the contract of sale and warranty of the threshing outfit here in controversy was divisible, and the defendant's right to rescind limited to such separate parts of the outfit as failed to comply with the warranty.
Our first impressions were that the contract was indivisible, because the machinery, constituting the subject-matter of the contract, consisted of but one entire threshing outfit, the whole thereof being absolutely essential for the purpose for which it was purchased at a gross price. Neither the engine nor the separator could be operated without the attachments belonging to them, respectively, and it seemed to be unreasonable and unjust to hold that, if the engine and separator failed to comply with the warranty, the defendant might rescind as to them, but must keep and pay for the (to her) worthless attachments. But a more careful examination of the contract satisfies us that the parties thereto expressly stipulated that it should be divisible. It was competent for them to so contract. The outfit consisted, as stated in the contract, of an engine, separator, stacker, feeder, water tank, pump, hose, and elevator, and the contract contained these stipulations:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial