Legal Opinion

Excello Hosiery Mills v. Hirsch

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided February 18, 1935Published

1Opinion of the Court

Louis Hirsch Textile Machines, Incorporated, one of the defendants, a manufacturer of knitting machinery, sold and delivered to complainant, a hosiery manufacturer, attachments to be placed upon certain of complainant's machines. These attachments were designed for the purpose of producing hosiery with a special stitch known as mesh. The attachments when placed in operation did not work satisfactorily, and were incapable of producing the type of hosiery for which they were sold and warranted; a controversy arose; there was some correspondence between the parties, and then a part of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McCreery v. . DayNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Witherbee v. . MeyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
  3. Alabama Oil Pipe Line Co. v. the Sun Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Plunkett v. Comstock, Cheney Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
  5. Joseph Beck & Sons v. DanaherAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1916

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

Powered by the Exa API