Legal Opinion

Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Born

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 9, 1926PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*313The following opinion was filed January 12, 1926:

Rosenberry, J.

The principal contentions of the plaintiff are grouped under four heads. It is contended that the defendant cannot recover (1st) because he accepted the tractor by using the same twenty-two and one-half days and by his use of the tractor for a period of about two weeks after he wrote the plaintiff company stating that he condemned the tractor and that he would not keep it; (2d) because he failed to give notice of the breach of warranty as required by the contract; (3d) because he failed to give the second notice required by the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Astin v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Fox v. WilkinsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Bautz v. AdamsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
  4. J. L. Owens Co. v. WhitcombWisconsin Supreme Court · 1917
  5. J. B. Bradford Piano Co. v. BaalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Walter v. Four Wheel Drive Auto Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Arctic Engineering Corp. v. HarrisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Kloppstein v. FriesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API