Luitweiler Pumping Engine Co. v. Ukiah Water & Improvement Co.
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] The action was brought to recover $600 as a balance due on the purchase price of a pump. The defense is a breach of warranty. It is claimed that the pump was totally unfit for the purpose for which it was procured, and that the representations made concerning it by plaintiff and upon which defendant relied were false. An offer to return the pump was also pleaded and a demand was made for the return of $1,000 which had been paid by defendant on account.
Plaintiff…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- New York & Colorado Mining Syndicate & Co. v. FraserSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Polhemus v. HeimanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Kreuzberger v. WingfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Ehrsam v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902
- Fox v. Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Hauter v. ZogartsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Southern Pac. Co. v. LibbeyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
- Lane v. C. A. Swanson & SonsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Miller v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- California Jewelry Co. v. Provident Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.