Grieb v. Cole
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to St. Clair. (Stevens, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. If the warranty constituted a part of the contract, it was necessary to put the defendant in a position where he could enforce its provisions.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Clair. (Stevens, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. If the warranty constituted a part of the contract, it was necessary to put the defendant in a position where he could enforce its provisions. This was not done, and plaintiffs action must fail: Sherwood v. Hecox, 35 Mich. 202; Kimball & A. Manufacturing Co. v. Vroman, Id. 330. A warranty is a collateral undertaking, and forms a part of the contraed by the agreement of the parties: Benjamin on Sales 1st ed. § 610 ; and this is essential to its validity: Vincent v. Leland, 100 Mass. 432;…
1Opinion of the CourtCi-iampijn, J.
On May 1, 1883, one W. D. McLaughlin, as agent for plaintiff, took from the defendant the following order:
“ Gratiot, Mich., May 2, 1883.
“To Charles Grieb, Port Huron, Mich.: You will please shij) me, on or about the first day of June, 1883, one Buckeye light mower, to Port Huron, for which I agree to pay you $77, in manner as follows (reserving, however, the fnil benefit of the warranty hereon indorsed): $35 cash, with freight from Port Huron, on delivery, and execute approved ■notes as follows : $35, payable on the first day of January, 1884, with interest at 7 per cent, from delivery; $42,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rodman v. GuilfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
3Cited by11 opinions
- Donovan v. Aeolian Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Irving v. Goodimate Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
- Hewel v. HoginCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Ashwell v. MillerIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Little v. G. E. Van Syckle & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1898
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.