Fetsch v. Mandehr

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Fetsch v. Mandehr

31 N.W. 49, 36 Minn. 295, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 312

DecidedDecember 23, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 31 N.W. 49 (Fetsch v. Mandehr) 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

Fetsch v. Mandehr, 31 N.W. 49, 36 Minn. 295, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 312 (Mich. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Vanderburgh, J.

Action for goods sold. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the allegations both of the sale and of the value of the goods. The complaint alleged that they were reasonably worth, and of the agreed value of, the sum charged. It was afterwards amended by striking out the clause, “of the agreed value,” leaving it to stand upon the quantum valebat. t

The rejection of the question, upon cross-examination, as to the existence of a contract between the parties, for indefiniteness, or because not understood by the witness, was not prejudicial to the defendant. It might have been renewed in a more definite form. It was not apparent, as the magistrate doubtless considered, whether it referred to the contract sued on, or a special agreement as to the price or quality of the goods, or for a credit.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Vanderburgh, J.

Action for goods sold. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the allegations both of the sale and of the value of the goods. The complaint alleged that they were reasonably worth, and of the agreed value of, the sum charged. It was afterwards amended by striking out the clause, “of the agreed value,” leaving it to stand upon the quantum valebat. t

The rejection of the question, upon cross-examination, as to the existence of a contract between the parties, for indefiniteness, or because not understood by the witness, was not prejudicial to the defendant. It might have been renewed in a more definite form. It was not apparent, as the magistrate doubtless considered, whether it referred to the contract sued on, or a special agreement as to the price or quality of the goods, or for a credit.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 N.W. 49, 36 Minn. 295, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fetsch-v-mandehr-minn-1886.