Legal Opinion

J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Tate

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided March 7, 1921No. 9737PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Action to recover for breach of warranty. Judgment for plaintiff. Error to the District Court of Otero County, Hon. Samuel D. Trimble, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Teller

Defendant in error had judgment in an action against plaintiff in error to recover for breach of warranty of a threshing machine purchased by him at the Denver office of said company. The warranty required the purchaser, within six days after beginning to use the machine, to give notice to the local agent, and to the home office of the company, of any defect claimed to have been found in the machine. The machine did not work satisfactorily, and, within the prescribed time, notice of such fact was given to the company’s branch office in Denver, but no notice was sent to the home office at…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. McDaniel v. Mallary Bros. Machinery Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
  2. First National Bank v. DutcherSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
  3. Fahey v. Esterley Machine Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Nichols, Shepherd & Co. v. LarkinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
  5. International Harvester Co. of America v. DillonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Sloat v. MathenySupreme Court of Colorado · 1981
  2. Belt v. SpencerColorado Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. v. MillerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API