Brown v. Sanborn
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1902, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Heisley v. Swanstrom (Minn. 1889)
- Thompson v. Robinson (W. Va. 1909)
- James H. Rice Co. v. Penn Plate Glass Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1904)
- Bowers v. Whitney (Minn. 1902)
- Lewis v. Evans (Iowa 1899)
- Thompson v. Thompson (Minn. 1899)
- Ellis v. Denver, Lakewood & Golden Railroad (Colo. App. 1896)
- Ellis v. Denver, Lakewood & Golden Railroad (Colo. App. 1896)
- Mighell v. Dougherty (Iowa 1892)
- Burns v. Fidelity Real-Estate Co. (Minn. 1892)
- Stub v. Grimes (Minn. 1888)
- Russell v. Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific Railway Co. (Minn. 1888)
- Carpenter v. Galloway (Ind. 1881)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Defendant, in writing, agreed to purchase of plaintiff, at five dollars per ton, the flax straw to be raised from forty-five bushels of flax seed, “ the straw to be delivered in a dry condition, and to be free from grass, weeds, and all foreign substances.” It appearing that there were from twenty to fifty tons of the straw, the agreement was within the seventh section of our Statute-of Frauds, ch. 41,
The plaintiff claimed that subsequently to the making of the contract above mentioned, defendant, by parol, agreed to a modification of the same, by waiving the provision or condition that the straw must be free from weeds, and agreeing to receive the same under the contract, notwithstanding its weedy condition; and he was permitted to prove the parol agreement, defendant objecting. As the effect of admitting the evidence was to allow the plaintiff to prove, by parol, a contract which, to be valid, must be in wilting, its admission was erroneous, and entitled the defendant to the new trial granted by the court below.
Order granting new trial affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.