Philbrick v. Kendall
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On motion and exceptions by the defendant. This is an action of assumpsit to recover damages for an alleged breach of warranty in the sale of certain fertilizer by the defendant that it contained the necessary ingredients to make it suitable to use to grow potatoes. The plea is the general issue. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $812.50. The defendant had various exceptions, and filed a general motion for a new trial. The case is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtBird, J.
This action is brought for the recovery of damages for breach of contract for the sale of fertilizer. The jury found for plaintiff. The case is before this court upon numerous exceptions and a general motion for new trial.
In the spring of 1909, the plaintiff, a farmer, ordered of defendants, manufacturers of fertilizers, eleven tons of fertilizer. The order was transmitted through the selling agent of the defendants, who manufactured as adapted to the growth of potatoes four fertilizers known as “4-6-10,” “3-6-10,” “Special Potato” and “Aroostook.” They also manufactured six other brands of…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- White v. . MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Jones v. GeorgeTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- Dushane v. BenedictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Hoe v. . SanbornNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Berger v. E. Berger & Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1918
- Burns v. Baldwin-Doherty Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1934
- American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. McKinneyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Libby v. Woodman Potato Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1937