Legal Opinion

Rimmele v. Huebner

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 30, 1918No. Docket No. 92PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Saginaw; Kendrick, J. Assumpsit by Leo J. Rimmele against John Huebner and another for the recovery of money paid for an automobile. Judgment for plaintiff against defendant Huebner, who brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtPerson, J.

The defendant John Huebner resides in Saginaw, and is- engaged, among other things, in the sale of automobiles. In the early part of the year 1913 he sold to plaintiff a car manufactured by the Thos. B. Jeffrey Company, a corporation of Kenosha, Wis. The price of the car was $1,900, which the plaintiff paid. After using the car for a time the plaintiff says that he found it was not in accordance with the warranty under which it was sold, and he claims that he thereupon *249delivered it back to the defendant, who received and accepted it and promised to furnish him a new car. A new car not having…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. H. W. Williams Transportation Line v. Darius Cole Transportation Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Ballou v. HillMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
  3. Harris v. ThomasMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Carroll v. Palmer Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Root & McBride Co. v. Walton Salt Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Youngs v. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Ford Motor Co. v. CullumCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API