Geiser Threshing-Machine Co. v. Dresden

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Geiser Threshing-Machine Co. v. Dresden

12 N.W. 453, 29 Minn. 169, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 77

DecidedMay 30, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 12 N.W. 453 (Geiser Threshing-Machine Co. v. Dresden) 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

Geiser Threshing-Machine Co. v. Dresden, 12 N.W. 453, 29 Minn. 169, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 77 (Mich. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

The evidence in this case is clearly sufficient to sustain the findings of the referee. The error into which the appellant has fallen is in supposing that the direct testimony of Herniman, tending to show a breach of the warranty of the threshing-machine, was controlling, because there was no direct evidence to rebut it. It was the right as well as duty of the referee to consider the circumstantial evidence, which, in this case, was very strong against the defendants. The testimony of Herniman regarding the quality of the machine was vague, indefinite, and unsatisfactory. The manner of defendants in dealing with the machine, the fact of their making large payments upon it, and finally, after the lapse of several years, executing to plaintiff new notes for the unpaid balance of the purchase-money, without, as found by the referee, alléging any de-[170]*170feds in the machine, or making any claim for the damages which they now claim, tend very strongly to prove that their present defence is unfounded, and fully warranted the referee in finding that defendants’ counterclaim was not established by the evidence.

Order affirmed.

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

Mitchell, J.

The evidence in this case is clearly sufficient to sustain the findings of the referee. The error into which the appellant has fallen is in supposing that the direct testimony of Herniman, tending to show a breach of the warranty of the threshing-machine, was controlling, because there was no direct evidence to rebut it. It was the right as well as duty of the referee to consider the circumstantial evidence, which, in this case, was very strong against the defendants. The testimony of Herniman regarding the quality of the machine was vague, indefinite, and unsatisfactory. The manner of defendants in dealing with the machine, the fact of their making large payments upon it, and finally, after the lapse of several years, executing to plaintiff new notes for the unpaid balance of the purchase-money, without, as found by the referee, alléging any de-[170]*170feds in the machine, or making any claim for the damages which they now claim, tend very strongly to prove that their present defence is unfounded, and fully warranted the referee in finding that defendants’ counterclaim was not established by the evidence.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.W. 453, 29 Minn. 169, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geiser-threshing-machine-co-v-dresden-minn-1882.