Legal Opinion
Claflin & Kimball v. Mather Electric Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided December 7, 1899No. 73PublishedCited by 6 opinions
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut.
1Opinion of the Court
SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge.
In March, 1892, the parties entered into a written contract, by which the plaintiff became the exclusive agent for the sale of electric appliances and machinery which the defendant was then producing. Article 13 of the contract provided that the defendant should protect the plaintiff “from loss arising from mechanical or electrical defects in goods of their manufacture.” On February 2, 1894—
“The defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for causes growing out of this contract, and was also indebted to certain banks in the city of Hartford, and, in order to enable it to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Secor v. . SturgisNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Brown v. . NicholsNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Wildman v. WildmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
- Burritt v. BelfySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1879
- Welles v. RhodesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1890
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Vineseck v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Welch v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1908
- Johnson & Johnson v. HeroldDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1907
- Hardwicke-Etter Co. v. City of DurantSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
- Southern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United StatedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.