Legal Opinion

Alabama Broom & Mattress Co. v. Nashville Broom & Supply Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 29, 1922No. 8 Div. 389PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.

When any commodity is sold by description, as shown in this case, and the description is not substantially satisfied by the commodity delivered, the purchaser is not bound to accept it. Elliott v. Howison, 146 Ala. 568, 40 South. 1018; H. I. & M. Works v. Bland, 167 Ala. 391, 52 South. 445; Penn v. Smith, 98 Ala. 560, 564, 12 South. 818. But, if he does accept and use it, he does not thereby waive the defect, but may nevertheless treat the defect as a breach of warranty for which he may recover appropriate damages. 35 Cyc. 430, 3, and cases cited in note 36; Kornegay v. White, 10 Ala. 255;…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Elliott v. HowisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
  2. Herring v. SkaggsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1878
  3. Milton v. RowlandSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
  4. Kornegay v. WhiteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
  5. Penn v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bradford v. Moore Brothers Feed and GrocerySupreme Court of Alabama · 1958
  2. Kardis v. BarrereLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Nashville Broom & Supply Co. v. Alabama Broom & Mattress Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API