Legal Opinion

Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. Crandall

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 8, 1889PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Error to Cass (Smith, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Long, «L

Defendants bought of Nichols, Shepard & Co., a corporation doing business at Battle Creek, a threshing outfit, in the fall of 1884. On the purchase six notes were given by defendants, amounting to the sum of $1,723. There remained unpaid on these notes at the time of the trial in the court below the sum of $1,045.80, according to the terms of the notes.

Defendants claimed a breach of warranty on the sale of the engine, and on the trial plaintiff had judgment for $77. Plaintiff brings error.

Defendants gave a written order for the outfit, which contained the following warranty:

*403“This…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. JohnstonTennessee Supreme Court · 1847
  2. Martin v. HamlinMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
  3. McLellan v. Cumberland BankSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1845

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. McCray Refrigerator & Cold Storage Co. v. Woods & ZentMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Cohen v. JackoboiceMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Johnson v. BrattonMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  4. John Hutchison Manufacturing Co. v. PinchMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Detroit Shipbuilding Co. v. ComstockMichigan Supreme Court · 1906

13 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