Legal Opinion

Hudnutt v. Comstock

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 1883PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Mecosta. (Fuller, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.

In the view we take of this case, the question whether there was a contract of warranty as alleged by the appellant, and defendant, is important in relation to the principal errors assigned.

The pleadings in the case are a declaration in assumpsit on the common counts, a plea of the general issue, and a notice that the work, labor and material furnished were done and furnished by plaintiff in manufacturing and putting into the saw-mill of defendant certain machinery, among which was a sawdust elevator, which the plaintiff agreed to and with the defendant should be a good piece of machinery and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Raynor v. NortonMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Cameron v. BlackmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  3. Fish v. AdamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1877

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. De Palma v. WeinmanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Piowaty v. SheldonMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Smith v. PickandsMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Richmond v. AtkinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1885

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

Powered by the Exa API