Poovey v. International Sugar Feed No. Two Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBrogden, J.
The merit of this ease involves two questions:(1) Is there an implied warranty in the sale of feed for cattle and the nature thereof?(2) Is there sufficient evidence of a breach thereof to be submitted to a jury?
“The authorities are numerous that there is an implied warranty that runs with the sale of food for human consumption, that it is fit for food- and is not dangerous and deleterious.” Ward v. Sea Food Co., 171 N. C., 33.
However, it has been held that this principle does not apply to sales of feed for cattle. For instance, in Lukens v. Freiund, 27 Kan., 664, the late Justice Brewer…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- State v. . PrinceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Johnson v. JohnsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Ward v. Morehead City Sea Food Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Lukens v. FreiundSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Ashford v. H. C. Shrader Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Smith v. . SinkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
- Lincoln v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
- Trust v. Arden Farms Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- Lane v. BryanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Green v. RALSTON PURNIA COMPANYSupreme Court of Missouri · 1964
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.