Legal Opinion

Burkett v. Oil Automatic Heating Corp.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1928No. Docket No. 21PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

Supported by the evidence and. not against its weight, the trial judge found that plaintiff made known the purpose for which he desired an automatic heating device to the defendant, a manufacturer of such a device using oil as a fuel and having a thermostatic control, and that he relied on defendant’s skill and judgment in furnishing him a heating plant adaptable to his purpose, and that the plant furnished by defendant totally failed in its purpose. The testimony shows that plaintiff owns a house having several apartments, some of which are rented. Both he and his wife are employed and away…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Pentland v. JacobsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1915

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States Gypsum Co. v. Birdsboro Steel Foundry & MacHine Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  2. Lutz v. Hill-Diesel Engine Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Kolodzcak v. Peerless Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Salt Lake Hardware Co. v. ConnellWyoming Supreme Court · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API