Legal Opinion
Woody v. Bennett
California Supreme Court
Decided March 6, 1891No. 14070PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
The defendants sold and delivered to the plaintiffs a stallion called “ Lord Roxbury,” for the sum of three thousand dollars, and gave to them the following contract:—•
“ Tulare, Cal., Feb. 7,1887.
• “ This is to certify that we, E. Bennett & Son, have this day sold Lord Roxbury (1) to J. H. Woody, James Twaddle, I. N. Wright, and Irwin Brothers, and we guarantee that the two small thicknesses on the hocks shall go off if said parties use proper applications and rubbing; and in the case said bunches do not disappea?*, we will exchange with said parties for any horse of the same price…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Kofoed v. GordonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Loop Building Co. v. DecooCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Menotti v. MarchesiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Feagins v. BurtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Walsh v. BradshawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911