Legal Opinion
Pendergrass v. Fairchild
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided February 27, 1923PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BROWN, J. —
Defendant asserts failure of plaintiff to state a cause of action in his complaint, because the allegation reading that the machine—
“was not well made, of good material, and did not do good work and did not properly perform its functions, and was and is not of a fitness sufficient for plaintiff’s needs, and was and is not of a capacity adequate for plaintiff’s needs, and was and is of no value whatever for the purpose of furnishing refrigeration for use in plaintiff’s place of business”
*542fails to aver the time when the ice machine failed to perform its functions.
It will be noted that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Feeney & Bremer Co. v. StoneOregon Supreme Court · 1918
- Wasserstrom v. Cohen, Frank & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. FieldsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Oregon Auto-Dispatch v. Port. Cordage Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1908
- Lindsay v. FrickeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- McGee v. BennettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1945
- Fara v. WellsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Puratich v. Pacific Marine Supply Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1935
- Salt Lake Hardware Co. v. ConnellWyoming Supreme Court · 1933
- Klinge v. FarrisOregon Supreme Court · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.