Rudneck

Rudneck v. Southern California Metal & Rubber Co.

Good Law
184 Cal. 274·1920 Cal. LEXIS 321·193 P. 775
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 12, 1920L. A. No. 6029.California2,737 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Olney, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment against it for the purchase price of certain materials found to have been delivered to it under a contract of purchase from the plaintiffs and for which it failed to pay. That a contract was made, that certain materials were delivered under it, and that the defendant refused to pay therefor are admitted. The substantial defense was that the materials delivered were not of the character called for by the contract. The facts are:

The plaintiffs are engaged in the junk business in Kern County, and were the owners of a pile of machine-shop refuse at the town of Taft. The pile, to some extent at least, was made up of “borings and turnings,” borings being the metal sawdust, so to speak, made in drilling into a metal, in this case iron or steel, and turnings being the metal shavings made in turning a metal upon a lathe. The defendant desired iron refuse for the purpose of supplying it to copper or other smelters, which apparently use it in reducing their ores. For this purpose the defendant inspected the plaintiff’s pile of refuse, and, according to the testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs, which was accepted by the court, agreed to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.