Shepard v. Carpenter
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 1973, 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
29 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Steen v. Rustad (Mont. 1957)
- Muscle Shoals Aviation, Inc. v. Muscle Shoals Airport Auth. (Ala. 1987)
- Buresh v. Mullen (Minn. 1973)
- Line Drivers Local No. 961 v. W. J. Digby, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1963)
- Clement v. Frantz (Tex. App. 1960)
- Zelle v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. (Minn. 1954)
- National Dollar Stores, Ltd. v. Wagnon (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)
- Baker v. Baker (Tex. App. 1947)
- Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Waldo (Mich. 1939)
- Radford v. McNeny (Tex. 1937)
- Toms v. Hellman (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
- Dial Toaster Corp. v. Waters-Genter Co. (Minn. 1930)
- Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lumber Co. (Tex. Comm'n App. 1926)
- Minneapolis League of Catholic Women v. Schafhausen (Minn. 1925)
- J. E. Johnson Const. Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Brenham (Tex. App. 1924)
- Gruesner v. Thatcher (Minn. 1924)
- Peer v. Hughes (Ariz. 1923)
- Esselstyn v. Meyer & Chapman State Bank (Mont. 1922)
- Dillingham v. Dahlgren (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)
- Holtz v. Olds (Or. 1917)
- Monahan v. Allen (Mont. 1913)
- National Fire Alarm Co. v. City of Portland (Or. 1911)
- Nave v. McGrane (Idaho 1910)
- Rose v. Hall (High Court of American Samoa 1980)
- Owens v. Wilson (Okla. 1929)
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
A contract between two persons, upon a valid consideration, that they will, at some specified time in the future, at the election of one of them, enter into a particular contract, specifying its terms, is undoubtedly binding, and upon a breach thereof the party having the election or option may recover as damages what such particular contract, to be entered into, would have been worth to him, if made. But an agreement that they will in
The agreement herein sued on leaves essential terms of the future-contract to be fixed by future agreement. It clearly contemplated that the logs to be cut and hauled should be delivered at some one place, but it. does not specify what place, but instead thereof provides that the (future) contract shall be for plaintiff to cut into logs, “haul and deliver at the boom or other place of delivery, to be-in and by said contract agreed upon,”' without indicating what boom, or where it may be. The place of delivery was manifestly left to be agreed on, and, when agreed on, inserted in the future contract. How payments were to be made by plaintiff for logs sold by him was a matter of serious importance, but all the contract says of it is: “One-third of the selling price thereof, in cash, to be paid within -days after such sale shall be made.” It is manifest the parties intended the future contract to specify the number of days within which payment or payments were to be made, but that they had not agreed on the number of days, and so left it to be agreed on and inserted in the future contract. A perhaps still more important matter was within what time the logs should be cut. All the contract says of that is “that the amount of timber or logs to be cut in any one year shall be agreed upon, and be expressed in said contract.” Where a final contract fails to express some matter, as, for instance, a time of payment, the law may imply the intention of the parties; but, where a preliminary contract leaves certain terms to be agreed upon for the purpose of a final contract, there can be no implication of what the parties will agree-upon.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.