King v. Rochester
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for non-acceptance of water valves. In August, 1891, the defendants agreed to buy of the plaintiffs a certain number of valves or water-gates, of the Peet pattern for an agreed sum. September 2 the plaintiffs delivered six of the valves, and September 19 six more, manufactured by the Peet company at their works in Boston.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for non-acceptance of water valves. In August, 1891, the defendants agreed to buy of the plaintiffs a certain number of valves or water-gates, of the Peet pattern for an agreed sum. September 2 the plaintiffs delivered six of the valves, and September 19 six more, manufactured by the Peet company at their works in Boston. September 22 they delivered five more, manufactured by a firm in Pittsburg, which differed in some respects from those already delivered, though the agents of the town did not discover the difference until September 26, when they learned that the plaintiffs had…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam:. *
The verdict establishes the fact that there was no rescission of the contract; and the only question raised by the case is, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the agreed price by tendering to the defendants valves as good as those they agreed to furnish. There was evidence that the defendants agreed to purchase valves of a certain pattern manufactured in Boston, while some of the valves tendered were different in some respects, and were manufactured in Pittsburg. If the valves tendered were not such as the agents of the town had a right to understand, and did…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Springfield Shingle Co. v. Edgecomb Mill Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1909
- Dallas Oil & Refining Co. v. Washington Cotton Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1926
- Mason v. MadsonMontana Supreme Court · 1931
- Mason v. MadsonMontana Supreme Court · 1931