McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Lambert
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Oarroll District Court. — Hon. S. M. Ehwood, Judge. AotioN at law to recover on an order for a harvesting machine. There was a directed verdict for the plaintiff, and a judgment thereon, from which the defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwin, J.
The order upon which this action is based provided for the delivery of a machine to the defendant at Coon JRapids, consigned to the care of “Jones.” Upon its delivery to the defendant, he was to settle therefor by note due January 1, 1901. The order contained the usual warranty, and provided for one day’s trial of the machine, with a stipulation, also, that if it did not work well immediate notice should be given the plaintiff or its agent, and “allow time to send a person to put it in order,” and if not then made to work well it was to be “returned at once to the agent of whom he received…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Van Werden v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietySupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
3Cited by6 opinions
- Federal Land Bank v. Union Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1940
- Whitney v. KrasneSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929
- Louisville Cement Co. v. Clell Coleman & SonsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1927
- Fritz v. Chicago Grain & Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- McManus v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.