Legal Opinion

McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Yoeman

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided March 26, 1901No. 3,380PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Erom the Daviess Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtWiley, J.

This was an action by appellant against appellee on a promissory note. The note was given for a corn harvesting machine. Appellant gave appellee a written warranty upon the machine sold. Appellee’s answer pleaded a breach of the warranty. Appellant replied, in *416substance, that, after the maturity of the note, and while it was attempting to collect it, and while appellee was claiming that he had some defense to it, appellee and appellant entered into an agreement by which, in consideration of extending the time of payment until a definite day, and by way of settlement and compromise, appellee…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Conant v. National State BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Gatling v. NewellIndiana Supreme Court · 1857
  4. Robinson Machine Works v. ChandlerIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
  5. Shirk v. MitchellIndiana Supreme Court · 1894

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Kullman, Salz & Co. v. Sugar Apparatus Mfg. Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Michigan Pipe Co. v. Sullivan County Water Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1920
  3. King v. Edward Thompson Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1914
  4. Bosworth v. GreilingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Millett v. Aetna Trust & Savings Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1919

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API