M & M Co. v. Hood Rubber Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract or tort, the first count in contract for a breach of implied warranty, and the second count in tort for false and fraudulent representations made by the defendant, whereby the plaintiff was induced to purchase from the defendant certain automobile tires, as described in the opinion, which were of poor material and badly made.
Read the full summary
Contract or tort, the first count in contract for a breach of implied warranty, and the second count in tort for false and fraudulent representations made by the defendant, whereby the plaintiff was induced to purchase from the defendant certain automobile tires, as described in the opinion, which were of poor material and badly made. Writ dated March 19, 1914. In the Superior Court the case was tried before King, J. The facts which could have been found upon the evidence are stated in the opinion. At the close of the evidence the defendant asked the judge to order a verdict for it. This the…
1Opinion of the CourtCrosby, J.
This is an action to recover damages for false representations alleged to have been made in the sale of automobile tires by the defendant to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is a dealer in pneumatic rubber tires (known as casings) for use on motor vehicles, having its place of business in Cleveland, Ohio. The defendant is a manufacturer and dealer in rubber goods, including automobile tires, with a factory and place of business in Watertown in this Commonwealth. Before June 27, 1913, there had been correspondence between the parties concerning the purchase of automobile tires, and on that date,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Mabardy v. McHughMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Whiting v. PriceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Poland v. BrownellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Holst v. StewartMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Inter-State Grocer Co. v. George William Bentley Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Wildman Mfg. Co. v. Davenport Hosiery MillsTennessee Supreme Court · 1922
- Nashua River Paper Co. v. LindsayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Commonwealth v. BartholomewMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
- Parker v. S. G. Shaghalian & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Schnitzer v. LangNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.