Legal Opinion
Rosenbush v. Learned
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided July 1, 1922PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBraley, J.
The plaintiffs, dealers in shoes at wholesale, bought of the defendant and paid for two lots of shoes. The first lot is described in the record as “plum or brown kid shoes,” and the *299second lot as “plum or brown kid, with field-mouse tops.” But customers having returned shoes sold from one or the other of the purchases, claiming that the shoes were defective because when handled in the ordinary course of retail trade the dye or dressing either chipped, wrinkled, cracked or rubbed off, the plaintiffs, after an offer by them to return and the refusal by the . defendant of a demand for…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Barrie v. QuinbyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Gearing v. BerksonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Conahan v. FisherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
- Farrell v. Manhattan Market Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Parker v. MoultonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hannon v. Original Gunite Aquatech Pools, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Ross v. Porteous, Mitchell & Braun Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1939
- Carlay Co. v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1946
- Reinherz v. American Piano Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Dunbar Bros. Co. v. Consolidated Iron Steel Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.