Int'l Pavement Co. v. Smith
Decision Date | 07 April 1885 |
Citation | 17 Mo.App. 264 |
Parties | INTERNATIONAL PAVEMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. SMITH, BEGGS & RANKEN MACHINE COMPANY, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
ERROR to the St. Louis Circuit Court, ADAMS, J.
Affirmed.
HIRAM J. GROVER, for the plaintiff in error: Where the contract of sale is executory, and an immediate delivery, or inspection is not contemplated by the parties, there is an implied warranty on the part of the vendor that when delivered the article will be fit and suitable for the purpose for which it is sold.--Parsons' Contracts, 7th ed. vol. 1, sect. 584, notes; Rodgers v. Niles, 11 Ohio 56; Chandler v. Lopus, Smith's Leading Cases, vol. 1, pp. 340 and 314. If he sells it for a particular purpose he undertakes that it shall be fit for that particular purpose.-- Jones v. Bright, 5 Bing. 523; Beals v. Olmstead, 24 Vt. 114; Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton, 110 U. S. S. C. 108; Wharton, Contracts, vol. 2, sects. 905, 906; Parsons' Contracts, vol. 1, sect. 586.
BROADHEAD & HAEUSSLER, for the defendant in error: An express warranty of quality in any particular excludes the idea of an implied warranty.-- Baldwin v. VanDiesen, 37 N. Y. 487; Wharton on Contracts, sect. 220; Benjamin on Sales (1883) sect. 1002; Denny v. Foster, 42 N. H. 175; Jackson v. Langston, 61 Ga. 394; Parkinson v. Lee, 2 East. 314; McGrew v. Fletcher, 35 Mich. 104; Mullain v. Thomas, 43 Conn. 252.
The plaintiff sues for breach of warranty in a contract for the purchase of two steam boilers from the defendant. The contract sued upon is embodied in the following correspondence:
“THE INTERNATIONAL PAVEMENT CO., ) Office 71 Broadway, Room 100. )
NEW YORK, August 26, 1881. |
J. P. ROBINSON.”
“SMITH, BEGGS & RANKEN MACHINE CO., ) Manufacturers of ) Engines, Elevators and General Machinery.
)
ST. LOUIS, MO., August 31, 1881.
SMITH, BEGGS & RANKEN MACHINE CO.
JOHNSTON BEGGS, Pres.”
“NEW YORK, September 13, 1881.
J. P. ROBINSON, President.”
“NEW YORK, September 13, 1881.
Smith, Beggs & Ranken, St. Louis,--
We will take the engine and boilers as proposed by letter of to-day.
J. P. ROBINSON, President.”
“SMITH, BEGGS & RANKEN MACHINE CO., ) Manf'rs of Engines, Elevators, and Gen'l Mach'ry., )
Office and Warerooms, Nos. 800 and 802 N. Main St.
)
ST. LOUIS, September 17, 1881.
JOHNSTON BEGGS, Pres.”
It appears from the testimony that the plaintiff purchased the boilers and engine for the use of the New Orleans Paving and Draining Company. They were landed at New Orleans on November 26th, 1881, and work was at once commenced in putting them up for service. The New Orleans Company, however, objected that the boilers were unsafe and worthless, and notified the plaintiff that it would not accept them. The testimony tended further to show, that a hammer test was applied, which proved the boilers to be so worn and weak that they would not have withstood a pressure of 60 pounds to the square inch. The defendant's testimony tended to show that, before the shipment, the boilers were tested by a competent person; that they stood the test at a hydrostatic pressure of 200 pounds to the square inch, and that the tester's certificate to that effect was mailed by the defendant to the plaintiff, at the time of the shipment. The court instructed the jury as follows:
“The court instructs the jury that the burthen is upon plaintiff of proving that there was a breach of warranty on the part of defendant, and unless you believe from the evidence that the boilers when shipped did not and would not stand a hydrostatic pressure of 200 pounds to the square inch, and that defendants did not furnish plaintiffs with the tester's certificate, then plaintiff can not recover in this action, and they should find for defendant.”
“The court instructs that, under the terms of the contract between the plaintiffs and defendants, sued on in this case, the defendants agreed to sell and ship to plaintiffs two second-hand boilers, which defendant was to test or have tested by 200 pounds hydrostatic pressure to the square inch, and furnish to plaintiffs the tester's certificate, and if they believe from all the evidence before them, that the boilers shipped to plaintiffs did at the time and place of delivery, which was aboard a vessel at St. Louis, stand a test of 200 pounds to the square inch, and that a certificate was sent to plaintiff by defendant, signed by the party testing them, then plaintiffs can not recover in this action, and they...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Swift & Co v. Aydlett
...as fertilizers are fertilizers, not that they will produce crops but that they are fertilizers. International Pavement Co. v. Smith, 17 Mo. App. 264: Johnson v. Latimer, 71 Ga. 477. A manufacturer of goods may not take money from a customer under an agreement to deliver certain designated a......
-
Swift & Co. v. Aydlett
...... course, cannot be the basis of a sale." Ashe, J., in. Johnston v. Smith, 86 N.C. 498. . . And, in. the instant case, a stipulation that there is ... but that they are fertilizers. International Pavement Co. v. Smith, 17 Mo.App. 264; Johnson v. Latimer, . 71 Ga. 477. A manufacturer of goods may not ......
-
General Fireproofing Co. v. L. Wallace & Son
...... articles sold were merchantable or fit for their intended. use. International Pavement Co. v. Smith, 17 Mo.App. 264; Johnson v. Latimer, 71 Ga. 470; Cosgrove v. Bennett, 32 Minn. ......
-
The National Cash Register Co., a Corp. v. Layton
...of personalty there is no implied warranty as to same matter. Fairbanks Co. v. Basket, 71 S.W. 1113, 98 Mo.App. 53; International Co. v. Smith et al., 17 Mo.App. 264; Advance Co. v. Briggs Company, 206 S.W. 587, 588 (not off. rept.) (2) Where a contract shows on its face that it composes th......