Legal Opinion

Shotwell-Johnson Co. v. C. O. D. Tractor Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 2, 1923No. 23,231PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Taylor, C.

Defendant, a manufacturer of farm tractors, entered into a contract with plaintiff in December, 1916, by which plaintiff agreed to manufacture and furnish to defendant, ready for use, 100 radiators for these tractors to be delivered in instalments and paid for as delivered. The number of radiators to be furnished was later increased to 400. The contract contained this provision:

The second party (plaintiff) guarantees that the above radiators shall be made of good material and in a workmanlike manner and that they shall do the work well for which they are intended. Any defect found…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Cahen v. . PlattNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
  2. Coburn v. California Portland Cement Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Enterprise Manufacturing Co. v. Oppenheim, Oberndorf & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1911
  4. Pacific Coast Elevator Co. v. BravinderWashington Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Hubbard v. GeorgeIllinois Supreme Court · 1868

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Inland Products Corp. v. Donovan Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
  2. Hayday v. Hammermill Paper Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
  3. Glenwood Range Co. v. Universal Major Elec. Appliances, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1954
  4. Universal Major Electrical Appliances, Inc., a Body Corporate v. Glenwood Range Company, a Body CorporateCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API