Hoover v. Peters
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Bay Circuit. This was an action to recover the balance of the purchase price of certain pork sold by plaintiff to defendant. The defence claimed that the pork was purchased to be used as food, and that the plaintiff so understood it, and that it proved unfit for such purpose.
Read the full summary
Error to Bay Circuit. This was an action to recover the balance of the purchase price of certain pork sold by plaintiff to defendant. The defence claimed that the pork was purchased to be used as food, and that the plaintiff so understood it, and that it proved unfit for such purpose. On the trial they asked the Court to charge the jury that if the facts were as claimed, that there was an implied warranty that the .pork was sound, and fit for the purpose of food; but which was refused. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff. The record in this case presents the following: I. When a farmer sells…
1Opinion of the Court
Campbell J.
To a suit for the balance remaining unpaid on the price of the carcases of three hogs sold by Peters to defendants' below to be used as food in their lumber camp, they set up, by way of recoupment, that one of the carcases was unsound and unfit for use. The purchase was made from the son of Peters, who was informed, at the time, of the purpose for which they were bought.
The Court refused to charge that, if such facts existed, Peters could not recover for the unsound article, and was liable on an implied warranty of soundness, but on the other hand instructed the jury that where a…
2Cited by26 opinions
- Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc. v. CappsTexas Supreme Court · 1942
- Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1911
- Race v. . KrumNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Farrell v. Manhattan Market Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Griggs Canning Co. v. JoseyTexas Supreme Court · 1942
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.