Moulthrop & Stevens v. Hyett & Smith
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Decatur. Tried before the Hon. W. H. Simpson. The facts of the case a.re sufficiently stated in the opinion. The evidence of damage in this case was full, complete and certain, and the defendants’ plea of recoupment should have been sustained.. Bell v. Reynolds, 78 Ala. 511 ; Mudge v. Treat, 57 Ala. 1. The case of Reed Lumber Go. v. Lewis, 94 Ala. 627, is not applicable to the facts of this case.
1Opinion of the Court
McCLELLAN, J.-r
This is an action by Hyett & Smith on a promissory note for five hundred dollars executed to them by Moulthrop & Stevens. The consideration of the note was a brick-drying machine called a “Smith Hot Blast Heater, No. 45.” The defendants *494pleaded in recoupment that Hyett & Smith, through their agent who made the sale, warranted that the machine would dry 25,000 bricks in twenty-four hours, that it in fact would not dry more than from 7,500 to 10,000 bricks in that time, and that in consequence they were damaged in the sum of six hundred dollars, which they offered to recoup…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Booth v. . Spuyten Duyvil Rolling Mill Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Allis v. McLeanMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- James & Mitchell v. AdamsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1875
- Howe Machine Co. v. BrysonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- McKinnon v. McEwanMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Grupe v. GlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Southern Railway Co. v. ColemanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1907
- Feeney & Bremer Co. v. StoneOregon Supreme Court · 1918
- Bixby-Theirson Lumber Co. v. EvansSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- Dickerson v. FinleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.