Legal Opinion

Mead v. Raymond

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 31, 1883PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Ingham. (Gridley, J.) Case. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtGraves, C. J.

This suit was instituted by the voluntary appearance of Mead and Raymond before a justice of the peace, pursuant to the statute. ,,Comp. L. § 5258. [How. Stat. § 6823.] A formal declaration with two counts was immediately filed, to which the defendant pleaded the general issue. The cause of action was a false warranty, and the action was in tort. The declaration described the sale of a horse by defendant to the plaintiff, and averred that the defendant falsely warranted that the horse was sound. The form of action is familiar. Carter v Glass 44 Mich. 154, and cases; Humiston v. Smith 22 Conn.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. House v. FortIndiana Supreme Court · 1837
  2. Cutler v. CoxIndiana Supreme Court · 1828
  3. Carter v. GlassMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Cooper v. LandonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
  5. Humiston v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1852

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Mellwood Distilling Co. v. HarperU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · 1908
  2. Nellis v. Pennock Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1889
  3. O'Connell v. SchwanabeckMichigan Supreme Court · 1889

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

Powered by the Exa API