Legal Opinion

Worth v. McConnell

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 20, 1880PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Genesee. Assumpsit. Defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtMarston, C. J.

This action was brought to recover the amount due upon the joint promissory note of Worth & Bartell, given in' part payment of a clover threshing machine purchased by Worth from the plaintiffs. The execution of the instrument sued upon was not denied in the pleadings.

The defense relied upon was that there was a warranty accompanying the sale of the threshing machine, a breach thereof, and a recoupment of the damages sustained in consequence of such breach.

To meet this defense the plaintiffs sought upon cross-examination of defendant Worth, when examined in his own behalf, to show that he had…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Vinton v. PeckMichigan Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Deuel v. HigginsMichigan Supreme Court · 1861

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Brackett v. MartensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
  2. Burtch v. Child, Hulswit & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Jones v. ArmstrongMontana Supreme Court · 1915
  4. J. A. Campbell Co. v. CorleyOregon Supreme Court · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API