Morris v. Bradley Fertilizer Co.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This was an action by the Bradley Fertilizer Company, a corporation created under the laws of Massachusetts, against A. G-. Morris, a citizen of Pennsylvania, to recover $2,000 and interest, being the amount due for a grinding mill purchased by defendant from the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This was an action by the Bradley Fertilizer Company, a corporation created under the laws of Massachusetts, against A. G-. Morris, a citizen of Pennsylvania, to recover $2,000 and interest, being the amount due for a grinding mill purchased by defendant from the plaintiff. A verdict was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant’s motion for a new trial denied, whereupon defendant brought error.
1Opinion of the Court
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
“If a man buy an article for a particular purpose, made known to the seller at the time of the contract, and rely upon the skill or judgment of the seller to supply what is wanted, there is an implied warranty that the thing sold will be fit for the desired purpose.” Benj. Sales (2d Am. Ed.) § 661. Where, however, a positive and unqualified order for a specific article is given, this rule is not applicable. In such cases there is an implied condition, according to the English authorities, or, as substantially the same thing is usually called by our courts, an implied…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Davis Calyx Drill Co. v. MalloryCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
- Hausken v. Hodson-Feenaughty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1920
- Stanford v. National Drill & Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Bartol v. Walton & Whann Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Delaware · 1899
- Rice, Barton & Fales, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.