Legal Opinion
Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Hammond Appliance Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided June 1, 1959PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Per curiam
Plaintiff assignee sued for the price of goods sold and delivered by its assignor, an appliance dealer. Defendant asserted that the sale had been rescinded and counterclaimed for reasonable storage charges arising from the seller’s failure to retake the articles in accordance with the agreement of rescission. The trial court dismissed claim and counterclaim. The Appellate Division reversed and directed the entry of judgment for the agreed purchase price. 52 N. J. Super. 332 (App. Div. 1958). We granted certification. 29 N. J. 61 (1959).
The Appellate Division found as a fact, and we agree…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Garbark v. NewmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1952
- Rubin v. SturtevantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1897
- Baker v. J. C. Watson Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1943
- North American Contracting Corp. v. HaleyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1958
3Cited by9 opinions
- Deerhurst Estates v. Meadow Homes, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960
- Fablok Mills v. Cocker MacH. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1973
- Northrop Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Litronic Industries, Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Royce Chemical Company v. Sharples CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- Fablok Mills, Inc. v. COCKER MACHINE & FOUNDRYNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1972
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.