Legal Opinion

Lutz v. Hill-Diesel Engine Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1931No. Docket No. 145, Calendar No. 35,643PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.

This is an action for damages for breach of warranty. The plaintiffs, commercial fishermen at Michigan ^ City, had a new hull for a fishing tug, 55 feet long and 13 feet 10 inches beam, and wanted an engine, shaft, etc., therefor. They were solicited by an agent of defendant corporation, a manufacturer of Diesel engines. They informed it of every detail of the boat, the speed desired, and the proposed use. It is not seriously disputed that plaintiffs relied on defendant to provide a power plant in the boat that would do the work. An order for an engine, shaft, accessories, etc., was given to…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Bekkevold v. PottsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  2. Minneapolis Threshing MacH. Co. v. HockingNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Joslin v. NoretMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Brownell & Co. v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
  5. John Hutchinson Manufacturing Co. v. PinchMichigan Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Hobart Manufacturing Co. v. RodziewiczSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. Davies v. Motor Radio Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1951
  3. In Re AbernathySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. Wade v. Chariot Trailer Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Burge Ice MacHine Company, an Illinois Corporation v. George J. Weiss, George J. Weiss v. Burge Ice MacHine Company, an Illinois CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1955

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