Legal Opinion

Hosiery Mills v. G. C. Hall & Son

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 30, 1926No. Docket No. 5040PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTyler, P. J.

Plaintiff recovered judgment for the sum of $2,167.93 and costs, and defendant appeals.

The facts relating to the transaction show that about November, 1919, defendants purchased from plaintiff, through an agent, a certain quantity of hosiery. This particular purchase was made by sample and no written order for the goods was signed by the defendants. On February ¡10, 1920, before delivery was made, defendants wrote directly to plaintiff at its mills in Nashville, Tennessee, in- , closing an additional order for 1500 dozen hose. This order designated the number, kind, size, etc., of the hosiery…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Sturm v. BokerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Summers v. Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1894
  3. R. J. Menz Lumber Co. v. E. J. McNeeley & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Wristen v. BowlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Weeks v. Robert A. Johnson Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Steven v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Nichols v. Hitchcock Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937
  3. Union Oil Co. of Calif. v. LullOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Grossman Furniture Co. v. PierreNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1972
  5. Israel v. CampbellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958

3 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