Palmer v. Hatch
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The overwhelming weight of decisions sustain the agent’s implied power to give warranty at the time of sale, because “ a warranty is one of the usual means of effecting a sale.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The overwhelming weight of decisions sustain the agent’s implied power to give warranty at the time of sale, because “ a warranty is one of the usual means of effecting a sale.” (6 Hill, 336 ; Eenn v. Harrison, 3 T. R. 761; 4 T. R. 117 ; Helyear v. Hawke, 5 Espin. 72; Wo.odin v. Buford, 2 Cramp & M. 391; Andrews v. Kneeland, 6 Cow. 354; Nelson v. Cowing, 6 Hill, 336; Milburn v. Belloni, 34 Barb. 607; Hunter v. Jamison, 6 Ired. 255-60 ; Woodford v. McClanahan, 4 Gilm., Ill., 90; Sanford v. Handy, 23 Wend. 260; Schuhardt v. Allens, 1 Wall., S. O., 369;…
1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge
It appears that the defendants, in July, 1867, sold and delivered to the plaintiffs sundry casks of whisky. It is averred in the petition that, at the time of the sale, the defendants, through their agent, Richardson, promised and agreed, in consideration of the purchase, to indemnify the plaintiffs against any loss or expense which might accrue to them in consequence of any seizure of said whisky on account of any supposed violation of the revenue laws of the United States prior to the sale. The petition further shows that the whisky was subsequently seized and proceeded against for an…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Long Bros. v. J. K. Armsby Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Johns v. JaycoxWashington Supreme Court · 1912
- Friedman & Sons v. KellyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Bagnall v. Frank Fehr Brewing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1920
- Kircher v. ConradMontana Supreme Court · 1890
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.