Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rowell v. Oleson, 20 N.W. 227.

26 citing documents.

Inland Products Corp. v. Donovan Inc. 62 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 1953
Inland Products Corp. v. Donovan Inc. 62 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 1953
Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288 , ; Beckett v. Gridley, 67 Minn. 37 , ; Helvetia Copper Co. v. Hart-Parr Co. 142 Minn. 74 , DeWitt v. Itasca-Mantrap Coop.
Berry Asphalt Co. v. Apex Oil Products Co. 9 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1943
Berry Asphalt Co. v. Apex Oil Products Co. 9 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1943
Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288 , ; Morris & Co. Inc. v. Power Mfg.
Cargill Elevator Co. v. D. Sullivan & Co. 214 N.W. 510 Minn. 1927
Cargill Elevator Co. v. D. Sullivan & Co. 214 N.W. 510 Minn. 1927
Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288 , ; Wm.
Helvetia Copper Co. v. Hart-Parr Co. 171 N.W. 272 Minn. 1919
Helvetia Copper Co. v. Hart-Parr Co. 171 N.W. 272 Minn. 1919
Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288 , ; Larson v. Minneapolis T. M. Co. 92 Minn. 62 , ; Wilson v. Nichols & Shepard Co. 139 Ky.
Curtis v. Northwestern Bedding Co. 141 N.W. 161 Minn. 1913
Overruled Curtis v. Northwestern Bedding Co. 141 N.W. 161 Minn. 1913
Lindeke Land Co. v. Levy, 76 Minn. 364 , , wherein the decision in Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288 , , to the contrary was overruled.
Pleins v. Wachenheimer 122 N.W. 166 Minn. 1909
Overruled Pleins v. Wachenheimer 122 N.W. 166 Minn. 1909
Lindeke Land Co. v. Levy, 76 Minn. 364 , ; overruling Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288 , ).
Wilcox Canadian Land Co. v. Stewart & Matthews Co. 119 N.W. 504 Minn. 1909
Wilcox Canadian Land Co. v. Stewart & Matthews Co. 119 N.W. 504 Minn. 1909
The' provision in the contract which reserves to the Wilcox Company the option to cancel the contract or insist upon the purchase of the remaining lands by the Stewart Company is not a determination of the remedy which shall be pursued in the event of the Stewart Company refusing to purchase the land, and the rule applied in Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288 , , Avery Planter Co. v. Peck, 86 Minn. 40 , , Id., 80 Minn. 519 , , and other cases, has no application.
McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Fields 95 N.W. 886 Minn. 1903
McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Fields 95 N.W. 886 Minn. 1903
Counsel assert that the learned trial court relied upon Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288 , , and was of the opinion that there is no difference between the warranty there considered and that now before us. There was testimony at the trial below fairly tending to show that the machine was not well made, or of good material, or durable.
Avery Planter Co. v. Peck 89 N.W. 1123 Minn. 1902
Avery Planter Co. v. Peck 89 N.W. 1123 Minn. 1902
Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288 , .
Wm. Lindeke Land Co. v. Levy 79 N.W. 314 Minn. 1899
Wm. Lindeke Land Co. v. Levy 79 N.W. 314 Minn. 1899
In view of a former opinion of this court (Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288 , ), to which reference will be made hereinafter, we have made a very careful examination of the authorities bearing upon the subject; and we find no better statement of the prevailing rule than in the words of Baron Parke in Higgins v. Senior, 8 M. & W. 834, 844, — although obiter, it must be confess
Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Patterson 68 N.W. 69 Minn. 1896
Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Patterson 68 N.W. 69 Minn. 1896
The case of Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288 , , cited by counsel, is not at all in point.
Souhegan National Bank v. Boardman 48 N.W. 1116 Minn. 1891
Souhegan National Bank v. Boardman 48 N.W. 1116 Minn. 1891
350 ;) Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
Williams v. Journal Printing Co. 45 N.W. 1133 Minn. 1890
Williams v. Journal Printing Co. 45 N.W. 1133 Minn. 1890
Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.