Legal Opinion

McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Heath

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 10, 1896PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from the Netoton Circuit Court. — Hon. J. C. Lamson, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.

In this case we have to deal with a very imperfect record. It is stated in appellant’s brief that the action is on a note for $44; that it originated before *462a justice of the peace; that the note was given fora part of the purchase money of a machine, commonly called a self binder; that the machine was sold under a special warranty which the defendant averred had been broken, and that he interposed the damage arising from the breach in extinguishment of the note. The transcript contains only the evidence, the instructions, the findings of fact by the court, the judgment and the order granting…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Williams v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
  2. C. Aultman & Co. v. YorkCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1892
  3. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co. v. CrowSupreme Court of Iowa · 1886
  4. Layson v. WilsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
  5. Stearns v. McCulloughSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Central Bank v. ThayerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
  2. Acme Harvesting Machine Co. v. GaspersonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
  3. Dotson v. International Harvester CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
  4. Columbia Brewery Co. v. Rohling & MenkeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
  5. Levine Bag Co. v. Minn. Barrel Bag Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API