Legal Opinion
Ohio Thresher & Engine Co. v. Hensel
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided February 22, 1894No. 1,035PublishedCited by 11 opinions
From the Marshall Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtReinhard, J.
This action was instituted in the court below, by the appellant against the appellees, on a promissory note given in part consideration of a grain separator sold by the appellant to Andrew C. Hensel and Lawrence W. Goodyear, with one James C. Nifong as surety.
The appellees filed answers and cross-complaints, setting up certain warranties and the failure thereof, and claiming damages.
Replies and answers to the cross-complaints were filed. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict for the appellees for damages, and upon this verdict, over various motions by the appellant, the judgment was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. GrayIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- McClamrock v. FlintIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Merchants' & Mechanics' Savings Bank v. FrazeIndiana Court of Appeals · 1894
- National Bank & Loan Co. v. DunnIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Scotten v. RandolphIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- City National Bank of Columbus v. JordanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- F. C. Austin Manufacturing Co. v. ClendenningIndiana Court of Appeals · 1899
- LaGrange v. CoyleIndiana Court of Appeals · 1912
- C. Callahan Co. v. DahmIndiana Court of Appeals · 1921
- J. F. Seiberling & Co. v. NewlonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1896
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.