Legal Opinion

Connell v. McNett

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 19, 1896PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to Ottawa; Padgham, J. Assumpsit by Catharine Connell against Jacob B. McNett for breach of warranty. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

Plaintiff recovered a judgment in an action originally brought in justice’s court to recover damages for a breach of warranty on a sale of a mare. The mare was purchased by the plaintiff for a driving mare, and the price of $225 in cash paid. Plaintiff offered testimony tending to show that she incurred an expense of $18 in having the mare treated, and that the care and keeping of the mare was worth $10 per month, and that she had been so lame from the time when she was first *331delivered to her that she could not be put to any use, and that the lameness was the result of a permanent disease.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kempsey v. McGinnissMichigan Supreme Court · 1870
  2. Mooney v. DavisMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Cole v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Cole v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Smart v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
  2. Ebel v. Saginaw County Board of Road CommissionersMichigan Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Brown v. Ann Arbor RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Hapke v. DavidsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Bamlet Realty Co. v. DoffMichigan Supreme Court · 1915

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API