Bignall & Keeler Manufacturing Co. v. Pierce, Butler & Pierce Manufacturing Co.

The cause of action in controversy in this case is the second count in plaintiff’s petition, which alleges, in substance, a written contract between the parties, made on June 1, 1889, whereby the defendant employed the plaintiff to construct “a nipple machine, guaranteed to cut two thousand nipples per day,” upon an agreement by defendant to forward its ninety days’ acceptance for the price of said nipple machine after its completion and receipt. Said second count further alleges that the machine in question was to be one of new and novel construction, requiring *674much skill, experimenting and…