McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Cochran
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to St. Joseph. (Joslin, J., presiding.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtShubwood, J.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff in justice’s court to recover the purchase price of a self-binding harvester.
The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice that defendant would show that the machine was warranted to him by the plaintiff, when purchased, to do first-class work, to do as good work as a machine owned by James Cochran, a brother of the defendant, who resided in the neighborhood, and to give perfect satisfaction to the defendant; that defendant was to have the privilege of trying the machine in doing his harvesting, and unless it complied with the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. ChesrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Phelps v. WhitakerMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Gibson v. VailSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881
3Cited by11 opinions
- Sax v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1900
- People v. ThompsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- House Cold Tire Setter Co. v. WhitehurstSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Platt v. BroderickMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Exhaust Ventilator Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.