Legal Opinion
McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Russell
Supreme Court of Iowa
Decided October 22, 1892PublishedCited by 6 opinions
Appeal from Wright District Court. — Hon. D. B. Hindman, Judge. Action for damages for refusal of the defendant to comply with his written contract for the purchase of a harvester. The defense was breach of warranty. There was a trial to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtKinne, J.
The plaintiff claims that on June 21,. 1890, the defendant purchased and ordered of it a harvester and binder, to be delivered before the harvest of 1890. That the purchase was evidenced by a written order of sale and warrant as follows:
"The, McCormick Harvesting Machine Company will ship for the undersigned, on or before harvest, their latest improved harvester and binder, including the usual extras, consigned to the care of S. H. Jones, at Clarion, Iowa, the undersigned agreeing to pay the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company $-cash, the freight and charges on delivery, and further,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Boothby v. ScalesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Druse v. WheelerMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Hirshhorn & Co. v. StewartSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
3Cited by6 opinions
- First National Bank v. DutcherSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- National Bank of Decorah v. RobisonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1925
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. BrowerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893
- Chariton Plumbing & Heating Co. v. LesterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
- Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Co. v. Horne Bros.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.