Statutes. Interpretation. Insurance Policy as "Movable Effects" within Statutory Dower

1920 Harvard Law Review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... ntent at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. RECENT CASES 6i5 the same streets and on either side of its tracks as authorized by a subsequent statute and an amendment to the state constitution. Held, that the injunction be denied. United Railroads of San Francisco v. City and County of San Fran-CisCO, 249 U. S. 5I7. For a discussion of the principles involved in this case see NOTES, P. 576, supra. RESCISSION -FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY -DEDUCTION FOR BENEFITS RECEIVED. The plaintiff sold a twenty-five horse-power threshing engine to the defendant. In answer to the defendant's constant complaints that the engine was unsatisfactory, the plaintiff promised to make it work properly. After the defendant had used it for two years, the plaintiff sued for the balance of the purchase [price. The defendant then discovered that the engine had a capacity of only twenty-two horse-power and claimed the right to reject the engine and recover the purchase installments already paid. 'The lower court found that the representation that the engine had a capacity of twenty-five horse-power was a condition of the sale and that its failure to develop twentyfive horse-power was the main cause of the engine's unsatisfactory performance. Held, that the defendant should recover the purchase installments less $204.
doi:10.2307/1328062 fatcat:4du5cdznyrcjlgydi2hmfwibpa