Raleigh Iron Works Co. v. Lee County Cotton Oil Co.

• Citation: 135 S.E. 343,192 N.C. 442
• Parties: RALEIGH IRON WORKS CO. v. LEE COUNTY COTTON OIL CO.
• Decision Date: 03 November 1926
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

135 S.E. 343

192 N.C. 442

RALEIGH IRON WORKS CO. v. LEE COUNTY COTTON OIL CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 3, 1926

Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Barnhill, Judge.

Action by the Raleigh Iron Works Company against the Lee County Cotton Oil Company, in which the defendant filed a counterclaim. Judgment for defendant on its counterclaim, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

Evidence of express notice to manufacturer of particular use of machinery to be repaired by him held sufficient to warrant special damages on breach of contract for failure properly to repair.

The plaintiff W. T. Harding, is engaged in the business of manufacturing founders and machinists under the name and style of Raleigh Iron Works Company. The defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing oil from cotton seed and also in the manufacture of cotton seed meal. Oil is manufactured from cotton seed meal by machinery, and an essential part of such machinery is the oil press, columns follow blocks, and the press boxes in which the oil is pressed from the seed.

The evidence tended to show that on or about June 11, 1923, the defendant wrote the plaintiff, desiring to know if plaintiff could do certain repair work on steel columns and press boxes. The plaintiff replied to this letter on June 12th stating, in substance, that he could do the work, and, among other things, was the following statement:

"But feel quite sure we could handle that also, as we have the best equipped shop in the state for general repairs. Send your work to us, and we will do it well and at a fair price consistent with same."

Thereafter the parts of machinery referred to were delivered to the plaintiff for making the necessary repairs. Witness Barringer, secretary and manager of defendant, testified:

"I talked with Mr. Harding before I sent the work. He told me he had equipment to do the work, and that he did work for the Raleigh Oil Mill. *** I made two trips to see Mr. Harding to get him to hurry up the work. I told him that the season was approaching, and that, unless I got it, I would be handicapped in getting the mill started, and he promised to get them back in a few days."

There was further evidence tending to show that the season for the operation of an oil mill begins about the 11th of September, and that the defendant received the first car of seed about September 8th.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for the sum of $761.36 for services in making repairs to said machinery. The defendant filed answer, denying that it was indebted to the plaintiff in any sum, and setting up a counterclaim for damages for $6,800. The basis of defendant's counterclaim was that, when the plaintiff delivered the repaired machinery to defendant and it was installed in the factory, it was discovered that the repairs were faulty and defective to such an extent as to make it impossible to use the press boxes for the purpose for which they were intended; that the repairs were not done in a workmanlike manner, in that the sides of the press boxes were bent, and negligently and improperly assembled and riveted; and that as a result thereof, it was with great difficulty and loss of time and increased labor and expense that the operations of defendant's mill could be carried on.

The following issues were submitted to the jury: (1) Is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint? (2) If so, in what amount? (3) Did the plaintiff contract with the defendant to repair the mill presses in the manner alleged in defendant's counterclaim? (4) If so, did plaintiff breach said contract? (5) And, if so, what damages is defendant entitled to recover by reason thereof? The jury, for its verdict, answered the first issue, "No"; the second issue, "None"; the third issue, "Yes"; the fourth issue, "Yes"; and the fifth issue, "$1,000."

From judgment for the defendant upon its counterclaim for $1,000, plaintiff appealed.

J. C. Little and Manning & Manning, all of Raleigh, for appellant.

W. B. Jones, of Raleigh, and Seawell & McPherson, for appellee.

BROGDEN J.

The material exceptions in the record present the question of the proper measure of damages. The defendant offered evidence tending to show that the side walls of the presses were negligently warped in the process of repairing them, and that this defect greatly increased the cost of operating the plant. The testimony was:

"We have a cake knife to remove the cake from the boxes. We give a little twist and that loosens it up, and we push it out. After the machinery was sent back, it would take two knives and probably a man or two before we could get the cake out of the boxes, and when we did get it out it was torn to pieces. *** It took 10 or 11 days to make a tank of oil instead of 5 1/2, which it would take normally."

The items of damage claimed by the defendant consisted of extra labor in operating the machines after the repair, decreased output, and also increased cost per ton of oil by reason of poor extradition of the cakes referred to. The plaintiff contends that the damages claimed by the defendant were not such damages as were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties. So that the merits of the controversy present two propositions: (1) Does the evidence warrant the award of...