Legal Opinion

Wallace v. McCampbell

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided November 29, 1941PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKiNNey

This suit was begun in the G-eneral Sessions Court at Knoxville by H. B. McCamphell against B. L.' and Harry Wallace, executors of B. L. Wallace, to recover $137.50, the price of a Marvel Homogenizer which McCamphell' sold B. L. Wallace in the spring of 1938. The suit was defended upon the ground that there was a breach of warranty in that the machine would not do the work for' which it was purchased. It is conceded that the machine" was defective and was tendered hack to McCamphell, hut he declined to receive it. This particular machine was manufactured to he used in the pasteurizing and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. Union Gin & Lumber Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Pemberton v. DeanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
  3. Lee v. Pauly Motor Truck Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Cool v. FighterMichigan Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Davis v. IversonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Kure v. Chevrolet Motor DivisionWyoming Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Cochran v. McDonaldWashington Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Courtesy Ford Sales, Inc. v. FarriorCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1974
  4. Rokicsak v. Colony Marine Sales and Service, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2002
  5. Scovil v. ChilcoatSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967

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

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

Powered by the Exa API