Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OE MISSOURI. •The case, as stated by tbe court, was as follows: This action was brought by the Pullman Palace Car Company to recover from the Metropolitan Street Railway Company the sum of $54,219.70 with interest from March 14,1888, alleged to be due to it under a certain contract for the construction of cars for the defendant company.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OE MISSOURI. •The case, as stated by tbe court, was as follows: This action was brought by the Pullman Palace Car Company to recover from the Metropolitan Street Railway Company the sum of $54,219.70 with interest from March 14,1888, alleged to be due to it under a certain contract for the construction of cars for the defendant company. The principal defence was that the defendant rightfully rescinded the contract and tendered the cars back to the plaintiff, which refused to receive them, and that after such rescission…
1Opinion of the Court
Me. Justice Hablan,.after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.
The facts found by the court below, as above detailed, bring this case within a very narrow compass, and render it unneces sary to make an extended review of the very large number of adjudged cases, American and English, cited in argument.
The subject of implied warranty in sales of personal property was examined by this court in Kellogg Bridge Company v. Hamilton, 110 U. S. 108, 116, and, subsequently, in Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating Co., 141 U. S. 510, 518. In the first of those cases it was…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Kellogg Bridge Co. v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Co. v. PhelpsSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Fort Scott v. HickmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- The Mary and Susan .—G. & H. Van WagenenSupreme Court of the United States · 1816
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Realty Acceptance Corp. v. MontgomerySupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- McDonald v. Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co. v. RoddCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
- Southern Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
- Houston Motor Car Co. v. BrashearCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.