Smith v. Barrie (Mich.). 816 State, Holmes v. (Neb.).... 232 633 Smith v. Crane (Minn.). Smith v. Eaton Co. Sup'rs (Mich.).. 267 Smith v. Keiser (Neb.)... ..... ..... Cotton Spensley v. Lancashire Ins. Co. Sperry v. Kretchner (Io.). ... 368 State, Raynor v. (Wis.). ... 680 Stewart, Torcheimer v. (Io.). 574 740 Strait v. Frary (Minn.). 660 Stram, Lessard v. (Wis.). State, Long v. (Neb.)... 120 State, Rasmussen v. (Wis.).. 835 430 772 780 435 459 860 153 37 381 Stensrud v. Delamater (Mich.). 272 636 63 886 392 321 95 924 295 284 864 435 150 717 217 831 37 256 ... 624 418 898 Wheeler v. Single (Wis.). 569 ... 912 Wheeler v. Walden (Neb.). Wheeler, State v. (Io.)... Town of Norway, Grinager v. (Minn.) 174 Travis, Johnson v. (Minn.).. Underleak, Crowley v. (Minn.)..... 443 Van Dusen, Fishback v. (Minn.).... Wells v. Edmison (Dak.). Wheelock, Hoffman v. (Wis.).. 713, 716 459 181 303 316 ..... 109 458 71 Village of Fox Lake, Town of Fox Wilson, Taylor v. (Neb.). 119 Lake V. Winebrenner, Pontius v. (Io.)—two Vimont v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. cases.. 646 (Io.) Vinton v. Beamer (Mich.). THE Northwestern Reporter. VOLUME XXII. SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA. OSBORNE and others v. MARKS. Filed January 3, 1885. 1. SALE-WARRANTY OF HARVESTER. Upon this warranty of a harvester and binder: "All our machines are warranted to be well built, of good material, and capable of cutting, if properly managed, from 10 to 15 acres per day. If, on starting a machine, it should in any way prove defective and not work well, the purchaser shall give prompt notice to the agent from whom he purchased it, and allow time for a person to be sent to put it in order. If it cannot then be made to do good work the defective part will be replaced or the machine taken back, and the payment of money or notes returned. Keeping the machine during harvest, whether kept in use or not, without giving notice as above, shall be deemed conclusive evidence that the machine fills the warranty;"-held, that keeping the machine beyond the first harvest season was not conclusive evidence that it filled the warranty, where it failed to work well on starting the first season, and the purchaser at once gave notice of the fact; the seller thereupon tried to put it in order and it still failed, of which the purchaser also gave due notice; and the seller again tried, but failed to make it work well. 2. SAME-ACTION ON WARRANTY EVIDENCE. In an action on such a warranty it is proper for the purchaser to prove that it worked badly after the first season, it being shown that it worked in the same way from the beginning, and also that it wasted grain, and to what extent, if due to defects in the machine, for the purpose of showing that the machine was not what it was warranted. 3. SAME-RENEWAL OF PURCHASE-MONEY NOTE. Where notes were given for the purchase of a machine with warranty, a renewal or payment of one of the notes, without mentioning any counter-claim for a breach of the warranty, would be strong evidence that none existed, but would not be a release or absolute waiver of one if it did exist. 4. SAME-DAMAGES. In an action on a warranty of a harvester and binder, it is improper, to establish the damages, to ask what, in its actual condition, it was worth as a harvester and binder; the question should be, what, in that condition, is its market value generally? 5. SAME-MARKET VALUE-OPINION. A witness who has no knowledge of the market value, although he may have worked the machine or seen it worked, is not competent to give an opinion of its value. Appeal from an order of the district court, Lyon county. v.22N,no.1-1 |