Curran & Wolf v. Hauser, Kramer & Co.
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati
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
- Kellogg Bridge Co. v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- State ex rel. Peters v. McCollisterOhio Supreme Court · 1841
- Dounce v. . DowNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Van Ostrand v. ReedNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Cosgrove v. BennettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.