Legal Opinion

Walker v. Pue

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided July 1, 1881PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from the Oircuit Court for Howard County. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Exceptions. — At the trial, after the taking of the six exceptions, the substance of which is stated in the opinion, the plaintiif offered the following prayers : 1. That the warranty set up hy the defendant, is that the fertilizer in evidence mentioned, should equal in analysis and preparation for drilling purposes, the fertilizer sold hy plaintiff to this defendant in 1876, if…

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Oircuit Court for Howard County. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Exceptions. — At the trial, after the taking of the six exceptions, the substance of which is stated in the opinion, the plaintiif offered the following prayers : 1. That the warranty set up hy the defendant, is that the fertilizer in evidence mentioned, should equal in analysis and preparation for drilling purposes, the fertilizer sold hy plaintiff to this defendant in 1876, if the jury should find such sale in 1876, to defendant. 2. That there is no evidence in the cause, legally sufficient to…

1Opinion of the CourtGrasos, J.

The record of this case shows that the appellee, in the year iBlS, purchased of the Atlantic and Virginia Fertilizing Company, who were manufacturers of a fertilizer, known in the market as “Eureka,” three tons of-said fertilizin’. The purchase was made from W. G. Carr, the local agent of the company, for Howard County. Joshua Walker, the appellant, being the agent of the company for *166the States of Maryland and Pennsylvania. The fertilizer so purchased in the fall of 1876, was used upon the wheat crop of the appellee that fall, and the result was so satisfactory .to him, that in August, 1877,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Rice v. ForsythCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Hampton Guano Co. v. Hill Live-Stock Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  2. Bancroft v. San Francisco Tool Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Robert W. L. Rasin & Co. v. ConleyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
  4. Hinchman v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1908
  5. Philbrick v. KendallSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1913

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