Nimrod
District Court, S.D. Alabama
In Admiralty. Suit to recover balance due on a contract for a boiler for a tug, and cross-libel for damages.
1Opinion of the Court
TOULMIN, District Judge.
1. Where a manufacturer contracts to supply an article which he manufactures, to be applied to a particular purpose known to him, so that the buyer necessarily trusts to the judgment and skill of the manufacturer, there is an implied warranty that it shall be reasonably fit for the desired purpose. This implies that the material and workmanship shall be good, and the vendor is liable in such case for any latent defect not disclosed to the purchaser arising from the manner in which the article was manufactured. 2 Benj. Sales. 988-993; Hoe v. Sanborn, 21 N. Y. 552, 78…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Kihlberg v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Kellogg Bridge Co. v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Hoe v. . SanbornNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Chicago, Santa Fé & California Railroad v. PriceSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Co. v. PhelpsSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bradford v. Moore Brothers Feed and GrocerySupreme Court of Alabama · 1958
- B. F. Sturtevant Co. v. Champion Fibre Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916
- Newcomb v. York Ice Machinery Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1932
- The VenezuelaDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1909
- Union Iron Works v. SpottswoodCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1906
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.