Day v. Mapes-Reeve Construction Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, upon an account annexed, to recover the balance due for a quantity of brick. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Bell, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows.
Read the full summary
Contract, upon an account annexed, to recover the balance due for a quantity of brick. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Bell, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows. The plaintiffs agreed in writing to sell and deliver to the defendant all the common hard brick required in the construction of a building to be erected by the defendant at Northampton, under an entire contract with its owner to build it and furnish the material therefor. The plaintiffs, who are manufacturers of brick at Northampton, made and delivered at the building during its erection…
1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.
The contract called for “ common hard brick,” and the ruling that there was a warranty that the brick should come up to the standard implied by that term was correct.
The court refused to rule that the knowledge on the part of the plaintiffs of the purpose for which the brick were tó be used created an implied warranty that they were reasonably fit for that use, but on the contrary ruled that the facts proved did not, as matter of law, create any such warranty, and, having so ruled, did not find as a.fact that there was any such warranty.
In all this we find no error.
While the plaintiffs had a…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Leavitt v. Fiberloid Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Gascoigne v. Cary Brick Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Schaffner v. National Supply Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1917
- Wavra v. KarrSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Standard Rice Co. v. P. R. Warren Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.