Legal Opinion

Randall v. J. A. Fay & Egan Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 10, 1909No. Docket No. 86PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Error to Arenac; Sharpe, J. Assumpsit by Herman J. Randall against J. A. Eay & Egan Company for breach of warranty. A judgment for plaintiff is reviewed by defendant on writ of error.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

This is an action brought to recover upon an implied warranty of fitness. The defendant’s Michigan agent, Mr. George A. Jenbs of Detroit, furnished plaintiff with a circular describing a No. 2, four-sided six-inch molder, containing, among other things, the statement:

“This machine is recommended for light moldings, sash, door and blind work or narrow ceiling. It is heavy and substantial, and all parts easy of access. It works four sides at one operation.”

After some correspondence, a contract was made consisting of añ order signed by plaintiff and subsequently accepted by defendant, describing…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Leo Austrian & Co. v. SpringerMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Little v. G. E. Van Syckle & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Tufts v. VerkuylMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Blodget v. Detroit Safe Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Westinghouse Co. v. GainorMichigan Supreme Court · 1902

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Grinnell v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Theisen v. Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Bouchet v. Oregon Motor Car Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Innotext Incorporated v. Petra'Lex USA IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
  5. J. A. Fay & Egan Co. v. CrowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922

4 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