Legal Opinion

Rome Brick Co. v. Dixie Machinery Mfg. Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 10, 1949No. 32593Published

1Opinion of the CourtFelton, J.

The defendant below contends that under the pleadings in the case there were three warranties of the machinery bought by it: (1) a warranty that it would not clog; (2) a warranty that it had a capacity of 15 tons per hour when the moisture content of the material did not exceed 15%; and (3) a warranty that 90 to 95% of the material when ground would pass through 1/8" mesh when the moisture did not exceed 15%. The plaintiff below contends that there was no warranty that the machine would never clog but that the warranty only extended to the circumstances and conditions stated in the warranty,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lyon v. Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1921

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

Powered by the Exa API