Kullman, Salz & Co. v. Sugar Apparatus Mfg. Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Plaintiff sued to rescind a contract for the purchase of a “Lillie triple-effect evaporator,” and for the recovery of such part of the purchase price as it had paid, because of the failure of the machine to meet the requirements of a warranty expressed in the written contract between the parties. Judgment was given for plaintiff, and from the judgment and order denying its motion for a new trial defendant appeals.
Plaintiff is a California corporation engaged in the business of tanning hides. Defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of machinery in the state of Pennsylvania. As a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Conant v. National State BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Bullard v. BrewerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Union Selling Co. v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Johnson v. PowersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Mooney v. CyriacksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Schied v. Bodinson Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1947
- Calpetro Producers Syndicate v. Chas M. Woods Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
- El Zarape Tortilla Factory, Inc. v. Plant Food Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- J. I. Case Threshing MacHine Co. v. Copren Bros.California Court of Appeal · 1919
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.