Legal Opinion

Hambrick v. Peoples Mercantile & Implement Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 7, 1958No. 5-1528PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGeorge Rose Smith, J.

This is an action by the ap-pellee to recover $2,875.25 assertedly due under a conditional sales contract by which the appellee sold a used cotton-picking machine to the two appellants. The defendants admit the execution of the contract, hut they ely upon a breach of warranty as a basis for denying lability and for recovering their down payment. The ■rial court, having refused to permit the defendants to prove either an express or an implied warranty, directed a verdict for.the plaintiff.

With respect to the express warranty the court’s rejection of the proffered proof was correct. The…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Drumar Mining Co. v. Morris Ravine Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1939
  2. Buffalo Pitts Co. v. AlderdiceCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
  3. Liquid Carbonic Co. v. CoclinSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1931
  4. New Birdsall Co. v. KeysMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
  5. Moss v. YountCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1944

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
  2. Green Chev. Co. v. KempSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966
  3. Equitable Discount Corp. v. TrotterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961
  4. Widmer v. Fort Smith Vehicle & Machinery Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
  5. Archer v. BucySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1962

1 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