Hoult v. Baldwin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, and from an order denying a new trial. TLe facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Belcher, C. C.
This is an action to recover the purchase price of a harvesting machine known as a combined header and separator.
The machine was manufactured by the plaintiffs at the city 'of Stockton, and is alleged to have been sold and delivered by them to the defendant in the month of May, 1878.
About the middle of April of that year the defendant was at Stockton, and in company with one H. C. Shaw, who resided there, went to the plaintiffs’ shops and saw some of the machines, which were in process of construction.
After leaving the shops, defendant said to Shaw: "If I write up to you to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Polhemus v. HeimanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by6 opinions
- Luitweiler Pumping Engine Co. v. Ukiah Water & Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911
- Pepper v. VedovaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Hoult v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Harron, Rickard & McCone v. SiskCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- American Seedless Raisin Co. v. Joshua Hendy Iron WorksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.