Legal Opinion

Budd v. Mutchler

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 11, 1929No. Appeal 85PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

The evidence was sufficient to establish an implied warranty by the defendant, (See Sales Act of 1915, P. L. 543, Section 15 (1) ) that the concrete blocks which he sold the plaintiff were reasonably fit for the particular purpose for which they were required, viz., for the erection of a two-story building to be used as a garage. The verdict of the jury establishes that the building crumbled and fell because of the defective and disintegrating quality of the blocks, and not through the fault of the plaintiff. These were matters of fact for the decision of the jury.

The…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Kellogg Bridge Co. v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Mastel v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  3. Fortney v. BreonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  4. Poland v. MillerIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Griffin v. Metal Product Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Royal Pioneer Paper Box Manufacturing Co. v. DeJongeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  2. West v. KatsafanasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  3. Ebbert v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. General Instrument Corp. v. Pennsylvania Pressed Metals, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1973
  5. Campbell v. G. C. Murphy Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API