Legal Opinion

Van Hoesen v. Cameron

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 1884PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Error to Kalamazoo. (Mills, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.

This action is assumpsit for a breach of warranty of soundness of a horse.

The plaintiff bought a span of black mares of defendant in April, 1882; one was known as the Sleeper mare, and the ■other as the McAllister mare. The plaintiff claimed and gave testimony tending to prove that at the time of pur■chase defendant warranted the McAllister mare to be all right and sound in every respect. This was on the 10th of April, and on the 15th of April she was found to be sick, and he sent for a veterinary surgeon, by the name of Sutton, who pronounced her disease pleuropneumonia. She remained sick…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Barlow v. LambertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
  2. Insurance Cos. v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
  3. Lewis v. ThatcherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
  4. Simmons v. LawNew York Court of Appeals · 1866

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. James Poultry Co. v. City of Nebraska CityNebraska Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Pennell v. Delta Transportation Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
  3. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. LevensalerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1923
  4. Munro v. Boston Insurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1963
  5. O'Gara Coal Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1926

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

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

Powered by the Exa API