Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Swift & Co. v. Aydlett

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 20, 1926Published

1Concurrence

Staoy, C. <!.,

concurring in part:

1. The stipulation contained in the note deals with the question of the defendant’s liability and excludes all warranties as to the results from the use of the fertilizers, or otherwise, except the one implied by law and necessary to create a legal obligation when all other warranties are negatived, to wit, that the goods manufactured by plaintiff and sold to the defendant as fertilizers are fertilizers and fit to be used as such. DeWitt v. Berry, 134 U. S., 306; Furniture Co. v. Mfg. Co., 169 N. C., 41. It is not to be supposed, from the language employed,…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Nash v. . RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Dushane v. BenedictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  3. De Witt v. BerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  4. Hampton Guano Co. v. Hill Live-Stock Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  5. Loxtercamp v. Lininger Implement Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1910

19 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