Legal Opinion

McClarran v. Longdin-Brugger Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 26, 1926PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFunk, J.

The parties stand in this court in an order the reverse of that held in the court below, and will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant, as they were in that court. Plaintiff sued defendant for $191.52, as the balance due on an account based upon a written order for ten Close-Tite automobile tops.

Defendant for answer, in substance, denied the corporate existence of plaintiff, and denied that it owed plaintiff anything, for the reason that plaintiff had violated its contract by shipping to defendant imperfect and defective goods, and violated its agreement that it would not sell its goods…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Learned v. HamburgerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
  2. Continental Jewelry Co. v. Pugh Bros.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1910
  3. Beach v. Kerr Turbine Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1917
  4. Bloch v. Eastern Mach. Screw Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1922

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Dot Systems, Inc. v. Adams Robinson Ent., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. Hutchinson v. RennerOhio Court of Appeals · 1928
  3. Roland v. MarkmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929
  4. Ward v. DanielsNevada Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Harpley v. H C Whitmer Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1935

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API