Harrow Spring Co. v. Whipple Harrow Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kalamazoo. (Buck, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
This action was brought to recover for harrow teeth furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant during the year 1889. The defendant sought to recoup damages on the ground that the teeth furnished were not properly tempered, and particularly for the reason that they were not of as good quality as certain teeth which had been furnished to defendant, and with which tests had been made prior to the making of the contract referred to below, and also sought to recoup damages for the failure of the plaintiff to furnish the teeth within the time contemplated.
The contract was made November 21, 1888.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. BehanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Mann v. TaylorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1889
- Toledo & Ann Arbor R. R. v. JohnsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by12 opinions
- Alderton v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
- Howard Supply Co. v. WellsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1910
- Sheldon-Seatz, Inc. v. ColesMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
- Hockersmith v. HanleyOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- John Hutchison Manufacturing Co. v. PinchMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.