Legal Opinion
Sudduth v. Holloway
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided October 23, 1924No. 6 Div. 209PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.
Count 2, the one upon which this cause was tried, stated a cause of action as for the breach of an implied warranty in the sale of a carload of coal. When the buyer orders goods to be supplied and -trusts to the judgment of the seller to select the goods, which shall be applicable for the purpose for which they are intended, which is known to both parties, there is an implied warranty that they are fit for that purpose. 2 Benjamin on Sales, § 998; Troy Grocery Co. v. Potter & Wrightington, 139 Ala. 359, 36 So. 12.
The case of McCaa v. Elam Drug Co., 114 Ala. 74, 21 So. 479, 62 Am. St. Rep. 88,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hicks v. MeadowsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Coffman v. Louisville & Nashville R. R.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1913
- Hirschfelder v. MitchellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Rice v. RiceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- McCaa v. Elam Drug Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1896
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kirkland v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1936
- McCarley v. Wood Drugs, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1934
- Bradford v. Moore Brothers Feed and GrocerySupreme Court of Alabama · 1958
- Gorman-Gammill Seed & Dairy Supply Co. v. CarlisleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- National Supply Co. v. Southern Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1932
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.