Richardson v. Messina
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Felt v. Reynolds Rotary Fruit Evaporating Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Little v. G. E. Van Syckle & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Blodget v. Detroit Safe Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Bailey v. PerkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Miller v. AshtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1927
3Cited by8 opinions
- Fargo MacHine & Tool Co. v. Kearney & Trecker Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1977
- McCullough v. Bill Swad Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- Kueppers v. Chrysler Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1981
- Parsonson v. Construction Equipment Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1969
- Aluminum Line Products Co. v. Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.