Legal Opinion

Heath v. Moncrief Furnace Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 18, 1931PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOoNNOR, J.

The cause of action on which plaintiff seeks to recover in this action, as alleged in the complaint, is a breach of the warranty contained in the contract under which defendant furnished and installed in plaintiff’s new apartment house a heating and ventilating plant. It is not alleged in the complaint, nor was it contended at the trial that the plant furnished and installed by defendant was not according to the plans and specifications attached to and forming a part of the contract. In addition to its contract to furnish and install a plant according to said plans and specifications,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Felt v. Reynolds Rotary Fruit Evaporating Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Baucum v. . StreaterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1857
  3. Taylor v. . McMurraySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1860

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.California Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Jewell v. PriceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  3. Weeks v. Slavik Builders, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1970
  4. Howe v. Pioneer Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968
  5. Southern California Enterprises, Inc. v. D. N. & E. Walter & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1947

16 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