Legal Opinion
K. B. Noble Co. v. Popielarczyk
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 21, 1939PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
This suit was brought in two counts. In the first the plaintiff sought to recover the balance claimed to be due for a “bulldozer” sold to the defendant on conditional bill of sale and in the second for parts furnished to the defendant. The defense was a denial of most of the allegations of the complaint and an affirmative plea of a breach of warranty. A counterclaim was added for the rental of equipment claimed to have been made necessary by the failure of the bulldozer.
The plaintiff bases its appeal primarily on an effort to correct the finding. The method adopted is that frequently…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Stevens v. William S. Howe Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
- Zazzaro v. Colonial Acceptance CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Pennsylvania-Dixie Cement Corp. v. H. Wales Lines Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Hausken v. Hodson-Feenaughty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1920
- Hansen v. CostelloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Eastern Sportswear Co. v. S. Augstein & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- Strang v. WitkowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Horton v. VickersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
- Acme Pump Co. v. National Cash Register Co.Connecticut Superior Court · 1974
- Acme Pump Co. v. National Cash Register Co.Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1974
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.