Lindley v. Hunt

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

Lindley v. Hunt

22 F. 52, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2486

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

DecidedNovember 1, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 F. 52 (Lindley v. Hunt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lindley v. Hunt, 22 F. 52, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2486 (circtedmo 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Treat, J.

Suit on a promissory note. The defense is a failure of ■consideration pro tanto. That defense arises in this way: The note was given for the purchase of a second-hand locomotive, and it is contended there was a warranty of said locomotive, or a representation as to its efficiency, on which the defendant relied. It so happened that after the locomotive was delivered and intermediate repairs, that said locomotive did not, without further repairs at the cost of defendant, operate successfully. The railroad retained said locomotive. The defendant in this case is the joint maker of the note, and as such' liable therefor, unless the defense interposed is established.

The evidence discloses that a full test was made by the railroad and defendant with respect to said locomotive, and that the same was purchased on the judgment of the defendant with respect thereto, and not upon any representations made by the plaintiff; also that there was no warranty. Hence the defense fails. Judgment for the plaintiff for $5,512.50.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Treat, J.

Suit on a promissory note. The defense is a failure of ■consideration pro tanto. That defense arises in this way: The note was given for the purchase of a second-hand locomotive, and it is contended there was a warranty of said locomotive, or a representation as to its efficiency, on which the defendant relied. It so happened that after the locomotive was delivered and intermediate repairs, that said locomotive did not, without further repairs at the cost of defendant, operate successfully. The railroad retained said locomotive. The defendant in this case is the joint maker of the note, and as such' liable therefor, unless the defense interposed is established.

The evidence discloses that a full test was made by the railroad and defendant with respect to said locomotive, and that the same was purchased on the judgment of the defendant with respect thereto, and not upon any representations made by the plaintiff; also that there was no warranty. Hence the defense fails. Judgment for the plaintiff for $5,512.50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F. 52, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindley-v-hunt-circtedmo-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack