Remsberg

Remsberg v. Hackney Manufacturing Co.

Good Law
174 Cal. 799·1917 Cal. LEXIS 868·164 P. 792
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 19, 1917L. A. No. 3842.California2,570 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sloss, J.

Plaintiff is the owner of 160 acres of farm land in Los Angeles County. The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota, and engaged in the manufacture and sale of the “Hackney Auto Plow,” a gas-engine tractor advertised and sold for the purpose and use of plowing, hauling, and operating farm machinery. In 1912 the parties entered into a contract for the purchase '¡by plaintiff of one of these implements. The auto plow was shipped to plaintiff who paid the full purchase price. Finding that the machine did not give the service which, as he contended, he had a right to demand, he undertook to rescind the contract, and brought this action to enforce the rescission. He was given judgment for the purchase price paid by him, with interest. The defendant appeals.

Before answering to the merits the defendant appeared specially and moved to set aside the service of summons, on the ground that there had not been such service as is required by the Code of Civil Procedure. (See. 411, subd. 2.) The motion was denied. We need not inquire whether the attempted service was in fact defective. By answering and going to trial on the merits, the defendant made a general…

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.