Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fishback v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co., 22 N.W. 244.

25 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
Defendant repeatedly refers to the remedy allowed as “rescission” in spite of the fact that the court specifically changed such language to “refusing to accept delivery.” See, Fishback v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co. 33 Minn. 111 , ; Hjorth v. Albert Lea Machinery Co. 142 Minn. 387 , ; see, also, Rose v. Baxter, 67 Ohio App. 1 , 34 N. E. (2d) 1011; 2 Williston, Sales (Rev. ed.) § 465a.
B. A. Griffin Co. v. Northwestern Fish & Seafood Co. 33 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1948
B. A. Griffin Co. v. Northwestern Fish & Seafood Co. 33 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1948
Fishback v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co. 33 Minn. 111 , ; Rail v. Little Falls Lumber Co. 47 Minn. 422 , ; Day v. Gravel, 72 Minn. 159 , .” In Sargent v. Bryan, 160 Minn. 200, 203 , , the rule is again stated: “Section 19, Uniform Sales Act, provides that unless a different intention appears, the property in the goods pa
Radloff v. Bragmus 7 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1943
Gustafson v. Equitable Loan Assn. 243 N.W. 106 Minn. 1932
Gustafson v. Equitable Loan Assn. 243 N.W. 106 Minn. 1932
Fishback v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co. 33 Minn. Ill, ; Globe Milling Co. v. Minneapolis Elev.
Crane Co. v. Advance Plumbing & Heating Co. 224 N.W. 847 Minn. 1929
Crane Co. v. Advance Plumbing & Heating Co. 224 N.W. 847 Minn. 1929
Even were that its only phase it is, as already suggested, the intention expressed or “manifested” (Fishback v. Van Dusen & Co. 33 Minn. 111 , ) that controls against some purpose concealed or gotten at only by remote and unreasonable implication.
Dalrymple v. Randall, Gee & Mitchell Co. 174 N.W. 520 Minn. 1919
Dalrymple v. Randall, Gee & Mitchell Co. 174 N.W. 520 Minn. 1919
Fishback v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co. 33 Minn. 111 , ; Globe Milling Co. v. Minneapolis Ele.
E. L. Welch Co. v. Lahart Elevator Co. 142 N.W. 828 Minn. 1913
E. L. Welch Co. v. Lahart Elevator Co. 142 N.W. 828 Minn. 1913
Fishback v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co. 33 Minn. 111 , ; Rail v. Little Falls Lumber Co. 47 Minn. 422 , ; Day v. Gravel, 72 Minn. 159 , .
E. L. Welch Co. v. Lahart Elevator Co. 123 N.W. 821 Minn. 1909
E. L. Welch Co. v. Lahart Elevator Co. 123 N.W. 821 Minn. 1909
Such is the reasoning in Fishback v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co., 33 Minn. 111 , .
Carter, Rice & Co. v. Cream of Wheat Co. 76 N.W. 55 Minn. 1898
Carter, Rice & Co. v. Cream of Wheat Co. 76 N.W. 55 Minn. 1898
Fishback v. Van Dusen, 33 Minn. 111 , ; National Bank v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 44 Minn. 224 , .
Manchester Locomotive Works v. Truesdale 46 N.W. 301 Minn. 1890
Manchester Locomotive Works v. Truesdale 46 N.W. 301 Minn. 1890
Fishback v. Van Dusen, 33 Minn. 111 , ( 22 N. W. Rep.
Eggers v. National Bank of Commerce 41 N.W. 971 Minn. 1889
Eggers v. National Bank of Commerce 41 N.W. 971 Minn. 1889
In that.case, which controls this, it was held, modifying what had been stated (unnecessarily for its determination) in Fishback v. Van Dusen, 33 Minn. 111 , ( 22 N. W. Rep.
Pond Machine Tool Co. v. Robinson 37 N.W. 99 Minn. 1888
Pond Machine Tool Co. v. Robinson 37 N.W. 99 Minn. 1888
Osborn v. Gantz, 60 N. Y. 540 ; Stone v. Perry, 60 Me. 48 ; Fishback v. Van Dusen, 33 Minn. 111, 118 , ( 22 N. W. Rep.
National Exchange Bank v. Wilder 24 N.W. 699 Minn. 1885
National Exchange Bank v. Wilder 24 N.W. 699 Minn. 1885
The learned judge who tried this case was fully justified by what-was said in the Fishback Case, (Fishback v. Van Dusen, 33 Minn. 111 ,) in deciding adversely to the claim of the banks, for it is there expressly stated that to bring a ease within the statute there must be a delivery by an actual depositor; that it has no application to a case • where a party simply attempts to pledge his own property in his own possession to secure his own debt.