Narrative Opinion Summary
Facts in the pleadings concern the sale of adulterated and poisonous mink feed, resulting in damage to the plaintiffs who fed it to their mink. An agreement between the buyers and seller stipulated that the buyers would use the feed at their own risk and indemnify the seller against any consequences. This case parallels Metz v. Medford Fur Foods, where similar issues were raised. The court determined that the demurrer to the defense based on the indemnity agreement should have been upheld. Consequently, the order is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to sustain the plaintiffs' demurrer and proceed in line with this opinion. Justice Hallows did not participate, while Justices Broadfoot and Wingert dissented.
Legal Issues Addressed
Demurrer to Indemnity Defensesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In this case, the court held that the demurrer to the defense based on the indemnity agreement should have been sustained, reversing the previous order.
Reasoning: The court determined that the demurrer to the defense based on the indemnity agreement should have been upheld.
Indemnity Agreements in Sales Contractssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated an indemnity agreement where the buyers agreed to use the feed at their own risk and indemnify the seller against any consequences, ultimately finding that such a defense should not stand.
Reasoning: An agreement between the buyers and seller stipulated that the buyers would use the feed at their own risk and indemnify the seller against any consequences.
Judicial Participation and Dissentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The judgment noted that Justice Hallows did not participate in the decision, while Justices Broadfoot and Wingert dissented, highlighting the divided opinion among the justices.
Reasoning: Justice Hallows did not participate, while Justices Broadfoot and Wingert dissented.
Precedent in Similar Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court referenced a similar case, Metz v. Medford Fur Foods, to support its decision to sustain the plaintiffs' demurrer.
Reasoning: This case parallels Metz v. Medford Fur Foods, where similar issues were raised.