Churchill v. Holton
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 1904, 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
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bamberger Bros. v. Burrows (Iowa 1910)
- Mead v. Rat Portage Lumber Co. (Minn. 1904)
- German Savings Inst. v. De La Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co. (8th Cir. 1895)
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
The record discloses these facts found by the court: The defendants bought four hogs of the plaintiff, at the agreed price of $31.50, to be paid on their delivery. Plaintiff drove them all to defendants’ stock-yard for delivery. They refused to accept one, which had become overheated in driving, and shortly after died, but did accept the delivery of the remaining three under the contract. The court thereupon ordered judgment for their proportionate value, being the sum of $22.62. Since there was an entire contract for the delivery of all the hogs together, the defendants were at liberty to refuse to accept any, unless the plaintiff was able to deliver them all according to the terms of the contract, which he could not do if, owing to accident or his own carelessness, the property was not in a suitable condition for delivery. But they were all to be delivered at the same time, and the defendants might, as they did in this case, waive the strict terms of the contract, and receive part of the goods under it, and the plaintiff would be entitled to recover for the part so delivered and accepted. Avery v. Willson, 81 N. Y. 341. The evidence tended to show that the price agreed on was the market value of such hogs; and, in the absence of any other evidence, the price agreed on is evidence of the value. In law the sum so agreed on becomes the quantum valebat, and the basis for estimating or apportioning the plaintiff’s damages in the action. Ludlow v. Dole, 62 N. Y. 617.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.