Byrd v. Campbell Printing Press & Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 November 1892 |
| Citation | 16 S.E. 267,90 Ga. 542 |
| Parties | BYRD v. CAMPBELL PRINTING PRESS & MANUF'G CO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The plaintiff having made to defendant a written offer to sell him a machine under full guaranty in certain designated respects, but in no others, and at a named price to be paid in specified installments, the writing providing that defendant might take the machine on three months' trial before deciding whether or not he would accept it; and he before the expiration of that time, having thoroughly tested the machine and pointed out to plaintiff's agent its failure, in consequence of various defects he had discovered to come up to the proposed guaranty, and having therefore declined to purchase it on the terms proposed, but having afterwards, with a full knowledge of the machine and its defects, purchased it at the same price, without express warranty, upon a proposition made by himself and on terms in some respects more favorable to himself, giving his promissory notes in settlement,--it is not a valid defense to an action thereon that there was a breach of the guaranty in the original offer to sell, or that, in consequence thereof the consideration of the notes failed, totally or partially, or that the machine was not merchantable, and reasonably suited to the use intended.
2. There was no error in rejecting amendments offered to pleas of defendant previously filed, the amendments referring vaguely to "improvements and attachments" which plaintiff was to put upon a machine, without describing them; to a letter of given date, without setting it out or stating a sufficiency of its contents to inform the court of its purport and meaning, from which letter, as alleged, a certain stipulation, the terms thereof not being stated, had been omitted by the mutual mistake of defendant and plaintiff's agent. These amendments, for the reasons above indicated, were too indefinite and uncertain, and could not be aided by reference to the evidence introduced before they were offered, or to evidence rejected by the court.
3. There was no error in rejecting evidence tending only to prove allegations contained in amendments to defendant's pleas which had not been allowed, or to establish the defenses of breach of warranty and failure of consideration, which, under the undisputed facts of this case, could not avail the defendant; and the court did not err in directing a verdict for plaintiff, or in refusing a new trial.
Error from city court of Atlanta; HOWARD VAN EPPS, Judge.
Action by the Campbell Printing Press & Manufacturing Company against C. P. Byrd on a note. Verdict for plaintiff. Defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and he brings error. Affirmed.
D. W. Rountree, for plaintiff in error.
Abbott & Smith, for defendant in error.
The writer has prepared and handed to the reporter a statement of the facts of this case.
1. It is perfectly clear from the evidence that Byrd distinctly declined to purchase the press upon the terms originally offered him in writing by the company, and there is no evidence to show that he purchased it under any express warranty at all; on the contrary, his own letter containing a proposition to purchase stipulates for no warranty of any kind. It is true he sought, by amendments, to set up that this letter, by reason of a mutual mistake of himself and the company's agent, did not contain the proposition he really intended to make, and that this was well known to both the agent and the company; but these amendments were not allowed by the court, and its refusal to allow them will be hereinafter discussed. Taking the case as it stands, there was no express warranty, and, of course, there could be no breach of one or any failure of consideration, total or partial, in consequence of such alleged breach. This much of the defense, therefore, falls to the ground.
The next inquiry is, could Byrd defend on the ground that there was a breach of the warranty implied by the law, that the article was merchantable and reasonably suited to the use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shores-uemller Co v. Bell
...based upon such defects. Harder v. Carter, 97 Ga. 273, 23 S. E. 82; Lunsford y. Malsby, 101 Ga. 39, 28 8. E. 496; Byrd v. Campbell Co., 90 Ga. 542, 16 S. E. 267; Sizemore v. Woolard, 3 Ga. App. 261, 59 S. E. 833 (2); American Car Co. v. Railway Co., 100 Ga. 254, 28 S. E. 40; Unitype Co. v. ......
-
Shores-Mueller Co. v. Bell
...based upon such defects. Harder v. Carter, 97 Ga. 273, 23 S.E. 82; Lunsford v. Malsby, 101 Ga. 39, 28 S.E. 496; Byrd v. Campbell Co., 90 Ga. 542, 16 S.E. 267; Sizemore v. Woolard, 3 Ga.App. 261, 59 S.E. 833 American Car Co. v. Railway Co., 100 Ga. 254, 28 S.E. 40; Unitype Co. v. Skelton, 11......
-
Byrd v. Campbell Printing-press & Manuf'g Co
...up, and attempted to be set up, by the defendant, resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. That case is reported in 90 Ga. 542, 16 S. E. 267. Afterwards, the Campbell Company brought a second action against Byrd upon another of the notes above mentioned. To this action ......
-
Byrd v. Campbell Printing-Press & Mfg. Co.
...and attempted to be set up, by the defendant, resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. That case is reported in 90 Ga. 542, 16 S.E. 267. Afterwards, the Company brought a second action against Byrd upon another of the notes above mentioned. To this action the defendant ......