Legal Opinion

Sturtevant Mill Co. v. Kingsland Brick Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided March 26, 1907PublishedCited by 4 opinions

On error to the Supreme Court.

1Opinion of the Court

*493The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garretson, J.

The plaintiff brought its action upon the following order of the defendant, which the plaintiff had accepted r

“New Yoke, April 12th, 1904.
“Sturtevcmt Mill Go., Stephen Girard Building, Phila., Pa.:
“All communications should be addressed to our New York office.

# íJí % $ :Jj

“Please deliver to our Kingsland plant the following: One set of standard centrifugal rolls, 36-in. diameter by 6-in. face, as specified in your catalogue, No. 8, page 44, you to guarantee the capacity of seven tons per hour or seventy tons per day of ten hours, to be…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Smith v. York Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1895

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Helvetia Copper Co. v. Hart-Parr Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
  2. Hickman v. SawyerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1914
  3. J. C. Boss Engineering Co. v. Gunderson Brick & Tile Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  4. Austin Co. v. Tillman Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1922

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

Powered by the Exa API