Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Russo v. Hochschild Kohn & Co.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided March 2, 1945No. [No. 55, October Term, 1944; On Re-argument, No. 21, January Term, 1945.]Published
January Term, 1945.]
1Concurrence
Henderson and Markell, JJ.,
concur in the result, Markell, J., filing the following opinion:
Judge Henderson and I concur in the result for the following reasons:
1. This is an action against a dealer,- not a manufacturer, for breach of an implied warranty, of fitness of goods sold, under Sec. 15(1) of the Uniform Sales Act [Code, 1939, Art. 83, Sec. 33(1)]. At common law such a warranty was not implied when the seller was not a manufacturer (or grower) of the thing sold. Luria Bros. & Co. v. Klaff, 139 Md. 586, 592-595, 115 A. 849. Hitherto this new cause of action, created by the Sales Act,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Vincent v. PalmerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1941
- Joannes Brothers Co. v. . LambornNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Wright v. Bristol Patent Leather Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Lander v. Samuel Heller Leather Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Impervious Products Co. v. GrayCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1915
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.