Legal Opinion

Hull v. Prairie Queen Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided June 6, 1914No. 18,771PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from Sedgwick district court, division No. 1; Thomas C. Wilson, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

West, J.:

The defendant appeals from a judgment rescinding a contract to purchase a thrashing machine ■outfit, and for a return of the compensation. The . plaintiff received the machinery about July-1, 1910, and all together thrashed, as the jury found, about 34,000 bushels of grain and plowed about 290 acres. Early in July, 1911, claiming that the engine and separator were both defective and unfit for the work desired to be done by them, the plaintiff testified that he informed the defendant’s general manager that he desired the property taken back and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hixon v. GeorgeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
  2. Davis v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
  3. P. Weybrich & Co. v. HarrisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
  4. Cookingham v. DusaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889
  5. Furneaux v. EsterlySupreme Court of Kansas · 1887

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Bucher & Willis Consulting Engineers v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1982
  2. Ventura Manufacturing & Implement v. WarfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
  3. Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc. v. LucasSupreme Court of Kansas · 1941
  4. Muenzenmayer v. HaySupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
  5. Vandermark v. Kansas Moline Plow Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1923

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

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

Powered by the Exa API