Cherry v. Hales & Edwards Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Cherry v. Hales & Edwards Co.

173 N.W. 400, 143 Minn. 481, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 541

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 11, 1919

DocketNo. 21,341

StatusPublished

This text of 173 N.W. 400 (Cherry v. Hales & Edwards Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cherry v. Hales & Edwards Co., 173 N.W. 400, 143 Minn. 481, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 541 (Mich. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Peb Curiam.

Action for damages for the breach of an alleged warranty of the condition and quality of a carload of corn sold by defendant to plaintiff, in which plaintiff had a verdict and defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for judgment or a new trial.

The assignments of error present no question of importance or which requires extended attention in an opinion.

The complaint alleges that the corn was expressly warranted as sound in quality and condition, and that as a part of the transaction samples of the corn were furnished by defendant, upon which, together with the express warranty, plaintiff relied in making the purchase. The evidence fully supports the complaint and justified the jury in finding the facts accordingly. All the correspondence between the parties leading up to the contract, together with the telephone conversation had by them in reference to the proposed sale, was properly admitted in evidence, and therefrom and not from any segregated part thereof recourse must be had in determining the character and terms of the contract. So looking at the record there remains no substantial dispute in the case on the merits. There was a breach of the warranty, for the evidence shows that the corn was spoiled and of no value whatever. The amount of the verdict corresponds with the evidence, and there is no merit to the contention that the damages are excessive.

This covers all that need be said in disposing of the appeal. We find no error in the record.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Peb Curiam.

Action for damages for the breach of an alleged warranty of the condition and quality of a carload of corn sold by defendant to plaintiff, in which plaintiff had a verdict and defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for judgment or a new trial.

The assignments of error present no question of importance or which requires extended attention in an opinion.

The complaint alleges that the corn was expressly warranted as sound in quality and condition, and that as a part of the transaction samples of the corn were furnished by defendant, upon which, together with the express warranty, plaintiff relied in making the purchase. The evidence fully supports the complaint and justified the jury in finding the facts accordingly. All the correspondence between the parties leading up to the contract, together with the telephone conversation had by them in reference to the proposed sale, was properly admitted in evidence, and therefrom and not from any segregated part thereof recourse must be had in determining the character and terms of the contract. So looking at the record there remains no substantial dispute in the case on the merits. There was a breach of the warranty, for the evidence shows that the corn was spoiled and of no value whatever. The amount of the verdict corresponds with the evidence, and there is no merit to the contention that the damages are excessive.

This covers all that need be said in disposing of the appeal. We find no error in the record.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 N.W. 400, 143 Minn. 481, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cherry-v-hales-edwards-co-minn-1919.