Minnesota Supreme Court, 1884

Rowell v. Oleson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 10, 1884 · Gilfillan

32 Minn. 288; 20 N.W. 227; 1884 Minn. LEXIS 153 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

II. IÍ. Wells, for appellants., H. S. Bassett, for respondent.

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 1953, 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

26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Wm. Lindeke Land Co. v. Levy (Minn. 1899)
Inland Products Corp. v. Donovan Inc. (Minn. 1953)
Berry Asphalt Co. v. Apex Oil Products Co. (Minn. 1943)
Cargill Elevator Co. v. D. Sullivan & Co. (Minn. 1927)
Hutchison Lumber Co. v. Lewis (Okla. 1923)
Nunn v. Brillhart (Tex. Comm'n App. 1922)
Helvetia Copper Co. v. Hart-Parr Co. (Minn. 1919)
Moline Plow Co. v. Wilson (Okla. 1918)
Schuling v. Ervin (Iowa 1918)
Consolidated Wagon & Machine Co. v. Barben (Utah 1915)
J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Badger (Ind. Ct. App. 1914)
Curtis v. Northwestern Bedding Co. (Minn. 1913)
Fred W. Wolf Co. v. Northwestern Dairy Co. (Wash. 1909)
Wilcox Canadian Land Co. v. Stewart & Matthews Co. (Minn. 1909)
Pleins v. Wachenheimer (Minn. 1909)
McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Fields (Minn. 1903)
Avery Planter Co. v. Peck (Minn. 1902)
Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Patterson (Minn. 1896)
Souhegan National Bank v. Boardman (Minn. 1891)
Williams v. Journal Printing Co. (Minn. 1890)
Otis Elevator Co. v. Standard Const. Co. (D. Minn. 1950)
Lincoln Joint Stock Land Bank v. Bexten (Neb. 1933)
Austin Co. v. Tillman Co. (Or. 1922)
Bell Bros. v. Robinson (Ohio Ct. App. 1916)
Shaw v. Water Supply & Storage Co. (Colo. App. 1912)

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

It was error in the court below to admit in evidence the warranty signed “S. E. Eord.” That Warranty was immaterial, and could tend but to confuse and mislead the jury, unless it was the contract of the plaintiffs. There was no attempt to show it *290to be their contract except by parol. That was incompetent. Where by its terms a contract is the contract of A, to show that it is the contract of B will vary or contradict its terms, as much as will evidence to change any other provision in it. Although the authorities are not in harmony on the point, the weight of them is to the effect that it cannot be done by parol. Ewell’s Evans on Agency, 248, [177] and note.

A departure to some extent from this rule was established in this state by the cases of Pratt v. Beaupre, 13 Minn. 177, (187,) and Bingham v. Stewart, 14 Minn. 153, (214;) followed by Deering v. Thom, 29 Minn. 120, in which the court acted upon the proposition that when words (such as “agent,” “trustee,” or the like) which may be either descriptive of the person or indicative of ;the character in which he contracts are affixed to the name of the contracting party, they are prima facie descriptive only, but it may be shown by extrinsic evidence that they were used to determine the character in which the party contracts. The same proposition is stated in 1 Parsons on Contracts, 54, that it may be determined “in each instance, and with whatever technical inaccuracy the signature is made, from the facts and the evidence, that a party is an agent or a principal in accordance with the intention of the parties to the contract, if the words are sufficient to bear the construction.” In other words, when, upon the face of the contract, it is doubtful with what purpose the terms “agent,” “trustee,” or the like were used, it may be shown by parol. The cases we have referred to go as far as is safe in that direction.

Upon the other warranty (that of the plaintiffs) the evidence fails to make out any counterclaim. That the parties to such a warranty may agree on a remedy for a breach, and make it exclusive, is not to be doubted. They did so in this warranty: “If said machine will not bear the above warranty, it is to be returned, after a trial of two weeks, to the place of delivery, and another substituted that will answer such warranty, or the money and notes immediately refunded.” The language of this does not give the purchaser any option. It is imperative that the machine “is to be returned after a trial of two weeks;” and then the vendor was to have the right to replace it with another, or to refund the money and notes immediately, i. e., to re*291■seincl the contract. No proof was made of any offer or attempt to return the machine.

Order reversed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.