Hills v. Rix

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Hills v. Rix

46 N.W. 297, 43 Minn. 543, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 269

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 23, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 N.W. 297 (Hills v. Rix) 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

Hills v. Rix, 46 N.W. 297, 43 Minn. 543, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 269 (Mich. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

The written contract for the sale of the horse to the plaintiff and his associates stated the price at $1,800, at the fate of $100 per share for eighteen shares, of which plaintiff subscribed for two. Plaintiff cannot make out his case, as he states it in his complaint and claims it to be on the evidence, without showing that defendants agreed with him to take $125 instead of $200 for his two shares. This he offered and was permitted by the justice to show by a prior or contemporaneous oral agreement between plaintiff and defendants to that effect. Of course that was error. The defendants raised the objection on the first opportunity after the written contract was in evidence so that it could be made. The two notes were no part of the contract of sale, but were given some days after its execution and in performance of it.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

The written contract for the sale of the horse to the plaintiff and his associates stated the price at $1,800, at the fate of $100 per share for eighteen shares, of which plaintiff subscribed for two. Plaintiff cannot make out his case, as he states it in his complaint and claims it to be on the evidence, without showing that defendants agreed with him to take $125 instead of $200 for his two shares. This he offered and was permitted by the justice to show by a prior or contemporaneous oral agreement between plaintiff and defendants to that effect. Of course that was error. The defendants raised the objection on the first opportunity after the written contract was in evidence so that it could be made. The two notes were no part of the contract of sale, but were given some days after its execution and in performance of it.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 N.W. 297, 43 Minn. 543, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hills-v-rix-minn-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack