Legal Opinion

Richardson v. Messina

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 16, 1960No. Docket 61, Calendar 47,940PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

The action before us is brought at law upon a conditional sales promissory note. Plaintiffs were not holders in due course thereof, the note being in default upon their acquisition thereof, * and are subject to the defenses of absence or failure of consideration, in whole or in part, † should such be established. The defense asserted is rescission for breach of warranty of fitness.

The controversy concerns automatic car-washing equipment. Prior to the purchase of the machinery hereinafter described, defendants relied upon manual operation. Plaintiffs’ agent proposed to mechanize the operation…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Felt v. Reynolds Rotary Fruit Evaporating Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Little v. G. E. Van Syckle & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Blodget v. Detroit Safe Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Bailey v. PerkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Miller v. AshtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Fargo MacHine & Tool Co. v. Kearney & Trecker Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1977
  2. McCullough v. Bill Swad Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Kueppers v. Chrysler Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1981
  4. Parsonson v. Construction Equipment Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1969
  5. Aluminum Line Products Co. v. Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994

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