Norris v. Reinstedler
90 Mo. App. 626, 1901 Mo. App. LEXIS 353
This text of 90 Mo. App. 626 (Norris v. Reinstedler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Norris v. Reinstedler, 90 Mo. App. 626, 1901 Mo. App. LEXIS 353 (Mo. Ct. App. 1901).
Opinion
The learned trial judge, after reviewing the facts, concluded as follows:
“This machine, being a secondhand one, there is no im-' plied warranty, and indeed the defendant’s only contention here is that he is not liable, because there was an express warranty, which would exclude, of course, the idea of an implied warranty. I am satisfied that there was no snch express warranty, and, hence, enter judgment for plaintiff for $150, the agreed purchase price, with six per cent from March 15, 1898, the date of the sale, which was to be for cash. I have marked the instructions asked by the parties and refused.”
No other logical conclusion could be reached under the evidence, and the judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Durbin v. Denham
210 P. 165 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1922)
Johnson v. Carden
65 So. 813 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
90 Mo. App. 626, 1901 Mo. App. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-reinstedler-moctapp-1901.