Legal Opinion
James Leffel & Co. v. Piatt
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided May 7, 1901PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Error to Ingham; Wiest, J. Assumpsit by the James Leffel & Company against Alamanzo A. Piatt to recover the balance of the purchase price of certain machinery. From a judgment for plaintiff on verdict directed by the court, defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, C. J.
On the 6th of May, 1897, plain*445tiff made a contract with defendant to sell him a quantity of machinery, including turbines, wheels, and appurtenances, and one Reynolds governor, at the agreed price of $3,759, in payments of $800 cash, and the remainder in installments of $150 per month, to be represented by notes bearing interest at 7 per cent. This contract contained a guaranty of the governor, reading as follows:
“We guarantee the governor to be of proper construction and design for the duty required of same. With ordinary running of your water-wheel plant, speed not to exceed 1-J- per cent,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Stow v. RussellIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
- Mather v. Butler CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1869
- Chrisman v. HodgesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Holm v. ColmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- Potter v. LeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Arizona-Parral Mining Co. v. ForbesArizona Supreme Court · 1915
- Hawkeye Casualty Co. v. FrisbeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
- Parker v. Advance Thresher Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913