Legal Opinion
Ruggles v. Buffalo Foundry & MacH. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided June 30, 1928No. 4894PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOORMAN, Circuit Judge.
Defendant in error, plaintiff below, recovered a judg ment on a directed verdict against defendants below, Ruggles & Rademaker, for tbe unpaid balance of tbe contract price of a brine evaporator, the unpaid balance of the contract price of a brine purifier, and the purchase price of certain pumps, gauges and glasses, amounting, with interest, to $23,492.-96. Defendants admitted that these several balances were correct but sought to recoup against plaintiff $18,250 in damages for failure to furnish the evaporator within the time specified in the contract, $9,315.70 paid…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lawrence v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1894
- Lillard v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1904
- Howard Supply Co. v. WellsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1910
3Cited by5 opinions
- Applied Data Processing, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1975
- Performance Abatement Services, Inc. v. Lansing Board of Water & LightDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 2001
- Standard Transformer Co. v. City of DetroitDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1956
- WÄRTSILÄ NSD NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. Hill International, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2006
- Alexander 106151 v. ShinnDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2021