Legal Opinion

Huber Manufacturing Co. v. Piersall

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided October 30, 1912PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from Payette Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Winn —

Affirming.. On the afternoon of Sunday, July 1, 1906, J. M. Pier-sail, as the agent for his wife, Nina Piers all, the appellee, bought of the general agent of the Huber Manufacturing Company, at Lexington, Kentucky, an eighteen horse power traction thresher engine. He took it that night to the farm of one Tanner, in Payette County, where he endeavored to thresh with it on Monday. Finding it unsatisfactory, he returned it to the Huber Manufacturing Company agency on Tuesday morning. When he bought the engine he had with him a blank check signed by his wife.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. MattinglyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United Talking Machine Co. v. MetcalfeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
  2. Morgan v. Mengel Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922
  3. Moriarty v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
  4. Piersall v. Huber Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API