Minnesota Supreme Court, 1890

Lee v. Bangs

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 18, 1890 · Gilfillan

43 Minn. 23; 44 N.W. 671; 1890 Minn. LEXIS 99 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

John M. Martin, for appellant., A. G. Wilkinson, 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 1908, 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

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Leigh v. Cornelius (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)
St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co. v. Princeton Roller Mill Co. (Minn. 1908)
Potter v. Lee (Mich. 1892)
Rosenfield v. Swenson (Minn. 1891)

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.

The order of the court below for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff (allowing defendant the part-payment set up by him) was right. The matters set up in the answer constituted no defence. The answer admits that defendant ordered the goods that were sent to him, and the price of them, but alleges that he gave the order in May for the delivery of the goods in the fall, and that it was agreed that upon a certain contingency be might countermand or cancel the order in part; that the goods were sent to him June 27th ; and that August 16th he gave plaintiff notice *25that he would accept only a specified quantity of the goods. Of course, the right to countermand the order would, of necessity, have to be exercised before the delivery of the goods. By accepting the goods, he would waive his right to countermand, and he also waived his right to object that the goods were prematurely sent him. He ought to have declined to receive the goods at the time, and notified plaintiff of his so declining; instead of which he received the goods, and made to plaintiff no objection till about seven weeks had passed, — certainly an unreasonable time to wait.

The answer that the goods were sold by sample, and that they were not equal to the sample, is still worse, for it does not appear that he ever gave plaintiff any notice of that. One purchasing by sample must, upon the goods being sent him, examine them, and, if they do not come up to the sample, must decline to receive them, and within a reasonable time notify the seller. If he receive them and is silent, he will be deemed to have acquiesced in the quality.

Order affirmed.

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