Legal Opinion

North Alaska Salmon Co. v. Hobbs, Wall & Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided February 3, 1911No. S.F. No. 4924PublishedCited by 17 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Titus, Wright & Creed, C. G. Dali, and A. M. Kidd, for Appellant.

1Opinion of the Court

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial.

The action was brought to recover damages for the breach of an express warranty in the sale of goods. The plaintiff alleged that in November, 1903, plaintiff and defendant agreed in writing that the defendant should manufacture, sell, and deliver to plaintiff at the premises of the American Can Company in San Francisco one hundred and twenty thousand salmon boxes, the defendant thereby expressly warranting that all said boxes should be of dry stock and free from dampness, and further agreeing to deliver the same…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Polhemus v. HeimanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
  2. Locke v. WilliamsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
  3. Jackson v. Porter Land and Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Winans v. Sierra Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Browning v. McNearCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. M. H. Walker Realty Co. v. American Surety Co. of New YorkUtah Supreme Court · 1922
  2. O'Bryan v. Mengel CompanyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1928
  3. Brandenstein v. JacklingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. Reininger v. Eldon Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1952
  5. Marocco v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1970

12 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