Cook v. Darling’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is the claim of the defendant that these goods were sold with the express warranty that they were manufactured in compliance with the requirements of the food and drugs act of Congress (Act June 30,1906, chap. 3915, 34 U. S. Stat., p. 768 [U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1909, p; 1187]), and that they were produced with skill and care for the building up and holding of trade, and that there was a breach of this contract on the part of the plaintiff. Whether there was here an express warranty or not, the fact appears that many of the goods were articles of food, and all were intended for family consumption. It seems to be a well-settled doctrine in this State that where property is bought for a particular purpose, and only because of its supposed fitness for that, and where articles are bought for consumption, and the vendor sells them for that express purpose, the consequences of unsoundness are so dangerous to health and life and the failure of consideration is so complete that, where there is not an express warranty, there is an implied warranty that the goods are' fit for the purpose for which they were bought, and that articles of food are fit for consumption. In such cases the vendor is held to a strict accountability. Hoover v. Peters, 18 Mich. 51 ; Sinclair v. Hathaway, 57 Mich. 60 ( 23 N. W. 459 , 58 Am. Rep. 327 ); Copas v. Provision Co., 73 Mich. 541 ( 41 N. W. 690 ); Blodget v. Safe Co., 76 Mich. 538 ( 43 N. W. 451 ); McCray Refrigerator, etc., Co. v. Woods & Zent, 99 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wolverine Spice Co. v. Fallas