Legal Opinion
Wisconsin Red Pressed Brick Co. v. Hood
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 1, 1897No. Nos. 10,357—(248)PublishedCited by 8 opinions
Action in the district court for St. Louis county against David Hood, Hurd Refrigerator Company and New Duluth Land Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff and from an order, Ensign, J., denying a motion to set aside the judgment, defendant Refrigerator Company appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
This is the third appeal in this action. See 54 Minn. 543, 56 N. W. 165; 60 Minn. 401, 62 N. W. 550. After the second appeal, the case was again tried before the court, without a jury. The court found that about 80,000 of the brick sold by plaintiff to the contractor Hood—
“Contained a latent or hidden defect, known to plaintiff, which caused them to disintegrate and crumble upon their exposed surfaces, and such defect was not visible or known to the defendants when using said bricks in said buildings, nor when they accepted the same, nor could such defect have been discovered by the use of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- White v. . MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Hoe v. . SanbornNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- State ex rel. Peters v. McCollisterOhio Supreme Court · 1841
- Kohl v. LindleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
- Wisconsin Red Pressed-Brick Co. v. HoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Safer v. PerperCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
- American Tank Co. v. Revert Oil Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1921
- Whaley v. Milton Const. & Supply Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1951
- Wood-Hopkins Con. Co. v. Masonry Contractors, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1970
- Flannery v. St. Louis Architectural Iron Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1916
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.