Legal Opinion

Berry v. Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 9, 1895PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from the Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.

The defendant is a corporation, and is engaged in manufacturing and selling reaping and *42mowing machines. The plaintiff purchased from it a machine, known as “The Walter A. Wood binder,” for which he paid $125. The machine was sold under the following conditional warranty, viz: “All our machines are warranted to be well made, and of good material, and to do good work with proper management, when set up and operated as per printed directions. If, upon starting any of our machines, it should not work well, immediate written notice must be given to the Walter A. Wood Mowing and Reaping Machine…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Nichols, Shepherd & Co. v. LarkinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
  2. Weise v. Birdsall Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1889

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. D. M. Osborne & Co. v. HenryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
  2. Dotson v. International Harvester CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
  3. Kerr v. EmersonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
  4. Osborne v. MullikinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901

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

Powered by the Exa API