Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Hutchins
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 1919, 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
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Oliver-Electrical Manufacturing Co. v. I. O. Teigen Construction Co. (D. Minn. 1959)
- Interstate Engineering Co. v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1940)
- Nichols & Shepard Co. v. Parker (Kan. 1931)
- White v. T. W. Little Co. (Wash. 1922)
- Hjorth v. Albert Lea Machinery Co. (Minn. 1919)
- Bamberger Bros. v. Burrows (Iowa 1910)
- Medart Pulley Co. v. Dubuque Turbine & Roller Mill Co. (Iowa 1903)
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
On August 8, 1891, the defendant ordered from plaintiff a threshing-machine “outfit,” to be shipped for him to Fargo, on or about August 15, agreeing to receive the machine on arrival, •and settle for the purchase price, before delivery of the property, in •cash and notes secured by mortgage on the machine, the plaintiff to have the right to reject or cancel the order at any time before it delivered the goods. The plaintiff accepted the order, and so notified the defendant. If the machine had been shipped on or about August 15, it would have arrived at Fargo on or about August 17. As a matter of fact, it did not arrive at Fargo until about September 12. When it arrived, defendant accepted the machine, and settled for it by giving his notes, secured by mortgage, according to the terms of the contract. When plaintiff brought this action to recover possession of the property on the chattel mortgage, defendant sought to prove damages, equal to the amount due on the mortgage, alleged to have been caused by plaintiff’s failure to deliver the machine at the time agreed on.
It is wholly unnecessary to consider the various questions discussed by counsel, as there is another principle of law that is entirely decisive of the case. A vendee’s acceptance of the property in
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.