Legal Opinion

Curran & Wolf v. Hauser, Kramer & Co.

Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati

Decided July 1, 1890Published

1Opinion of the CourtTart, J.

This is an action to recover the balance due cn a contract under which plaintiffs erected for the defendant firm a dry kiln fcr seasoning lumber upon a principle the patent fcr which belonged tc the plaintiffs. Defendant admits the contract, but denies its performance by. the plaintiffs. As as second defense, defendant says that “it is a firm engaged in business as coopers in the city of Cincinnati, and as such makes barrels, kegs, vats and other articles ordinarily made by' coopers; that in its business, it is necessary to have wood well dried in order that it may be properly worked and that…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Kellogg Bridge Co. v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. State ex rel. Peters v. McCollisterOhio Supreme Court · 1841
  3. Dounce v. . DowNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
  4. Van Ostrand v. ReedNew York Supreme Court · 1828
  5. Cosgrove v. BennettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884

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