Brierly v. Mills

It was not denied at the trial that the defendant purchased the attachments with the purpose of applying them to its own looms, which were the Davol looms, so called. The defendant contended that the contract was that it was not to pay for the attachments, unless upon trial it should be found that they would operate successfully when so applied. And evidence was introduced to the effect that one of the attachments was sent to the defendant’s mill, and applied, under the plaintiff’s direction, to one of the Davol looms. There was a conflict of evidence as to the success of the experiment; the…