Brummett v. Nemo Heater Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover damages for breach of an agreement to furnish a system of heating • in the plaintiff’s apartment house, No. 176 Washington Street, Dorchester, which should be capable of heating two suites on the first and second floors containing seven rooms each. Writ dated December 22, 1898. The declaration contained two counts; the first alleging generally a breach of contract, and the second alleging a breach of warranty.
Read the full summary
Contract to recover damages for breach of an agreement to furnish a system of heating • in the plaintiff’s apartment house, No. 176 Washington Street, Dorchester, which should be capable of heating two suites on the first and second floors containing seven rooms each. Writ dated December 22, 1898. The declaration contained two counts; the first alleging generally a breach of contract, and the second alleging a breach of warranty. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Aiken, J., it appeared that the defendant made a written offer to the plaintiff dated June 27, 1898, and beginning as…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
An important question in this case is whether the words, “ flues of sufficient draft,” mean flues of draft sufficient for such ranges as the contract called for, when used in the ordinary way, or of draft greater than is ordinarily used with such ranges, and sufficient to produce complete combustion of the fuel when burned in an unusual way in connection with the heater furnished by the defendant. It appears that the house “ was built in accordance with the dimensions and plans and information respecting the construction furnished the defendant by the plaintiff.” We assume that this means…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Adams v. DickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Sharples Separator Co. v. SkinnerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1918
- Livingston v. Reid-Hart Parr Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1921
- Cashman v. ProctorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908