Midgley v. Campbell Building Co.
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Third District; Hon. Geo. G. Armstrong, Judge. Action by E. A. Midgley and another against the Campbell Building Company. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. APPELLANT'S POINTS. The rule is well settled that where one undertakes to supply an article to the approval of the purchaser, no court or jury may substitute its approval for that of the purchaser.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Third District; Hon. Geo. G. Armstrong, Judge. Action by E. A. Midgley and another against the Campbell Building Company. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. APPELLANT'S POINTS. The rule is well settled that where one undertakes to supply an article to the approval of the purchaser, no court or jury may substitute its approval for that of the purchaser. (6 Cyc. 617-618; Tatum v. Geist [Wash.], 89 Pac. 547; Stottes v. Miller [Iowa], 105 N. W. 127; Inman Mfg. Go. v. American Cereal Go. [Iowa], 100 N. W. 860; Payne v. Roberts [Pa.], 64 Atl. 86; Gingerly v.…
1Opinion of the CourtStbaup, J.
In May, 1902, tbe government of tbe United States entered' into a written contract with tbe appellant, tbe Campbell Building Company, to construct a government building at Salt Lake City, in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by tbe supervising architect. About twelve pages of typewriting of such plans and specifications relate to tbe plumbing of tbe building, in which are enumerated and described in detail tbe kind, character, quality, grade, etc., of each fixture and article to be furnished and used for such purpose. Such portion of tbe plans and specifications also contained…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Combined Metals, Inc. v. BastianUtah Supreme Court · 1928
- Haymore v. LevinsonUtah Supreme Court · 1958
- Gillespie Land & Irrigation Co. v. HamiltonArizona Supreme Court · 1934
- Reid v. OwensUtah Supreme Court · 1937