C. Aultman & Co. v. York
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Lampasas. Tried below before the Hon. W. A. Blackburn, This is an appeal from a judgment denying the right to recover upon certain promissory notes executed for a threshing machine. The defense was that the machine was worthless, and had been returned to the agents of plaintiff, which agents had made the sale and had "represented the thresher to be c< as good as any of the kind in the United States.”
1Opinion of the Court
Walker, Associate Justice.
This was a suit on three promissory notes made by defendants to plaintiffs for a thresh*262ing machine. One hundred dollars of the price was paid cash. The agents handling the machine, Low & Low, through whom the sale was made, seem to have represented, at the time of the sale, the machine to be “as good as any of the same size and made for same purpose in the United States.” The defendants received it July 1, 1884, and kept it until October 4 thereafter, when they returned it to the agents, claiming that it was entirely worthless as a threshing machine.
The defendants…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Henderson v. RailroadTexas Supreme Court · 1856
3Cited by14 opinions
- Capitol Hotel Co. v. RittenberryCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
- Mutual Reserve Lies Insurance v. SeidelCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1908
- C. Aultman & Co. v. YorkCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1892
- Hubbs v. MarshallCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Waters Pierce Oil Co. v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1900
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.